Mr Adams complained, through his solicitors, about a statement in the article that read “In recent days Mr Adams has issued a legal letter to the Irish Independent, attempting to silence our reporting on another investigation.” His solicitors complained that the letter in question was a formal letter of complaint to the editor of the Irish Independent made in accordance with the complaints procedures of the Office of the Press Ombudsman about a previous article, and one which, they said, raised a genuine concern on behalf of Mr Adams. In these circumstances, they said that the statement in the article that this letter was an attempt to silence the newspaper’s reporting on another investigation was an unfounded accusation, in breach of Principle 4 of the Code.
The newspaper responded that the letter that it received from Mr Adams’ solicitors was, in its genuine and honest opinion, an effort by Mr Adams to gag the Irish Independent.
The Press Ombudsman decided that the statement complained of was an accusation which, if well-founded, would undoubtedly have affected the complainant’s good name. However, the “legal letter” sent to the editor, upon which the newspaper based its opinion that the complainant had tried to silence its reporting on another investigation, was a formal complaint made to the editor in the context of a possible breach of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazine, and did not contain a threat of legal action.
The opinion of the recipient of the letter about its contents does not constitute evidence of anything other than the existence of the opinion concerned. In these circumstances, the Press Ombudsman decided that the accusation that Mr Adams had issued a legal letter to the newspaper attempting to silence its reporting on another investigation was unfounded and, for this reason, a breach of Principle 4 of the Code of Practice.
Mr Adams’ solicitors also complained under Principle 4 that the article misrepresented and distorted the facts in a malicious attempt to cause maximum damage to him. However, there was no evidence of malice presented by the complainant’s solicitors, and this part of the complaint under Principle 4 is therefore not upheld.
Mr Adams’ solicitors also complained that the article breached Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) of the Code of Practice because, they said, the methodology adopted by the pollsters of the poll upon which the article was based was loaded and biased, that it was not a fair or honest way of procuring and assimilating news and information, and that the publication unfairly failed to have any regard to the prejudice their reporting on the issue might cause to an ongoing criminal investigation.
The organisation and methodology of the poll itself, which was the basis for this part of the complaint, is not a matter that is within the remit of the Press Ombudsman.
