1052/2022 - A Complainant and the Sunday World

The Press Ombudsman has not upheld a complaint that the Sunday World breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland.

The Sunday World published an extract from a book recently published. The extract included an account of how a reporter with the Sunday World in 2015 had received an anonymous phone call from a person claiming that there had been an “attempted shooting” at a Dublin hotel where a boxing event had been taking place. The reporter described efforts she had made to verify the caller’s claims. She was informed that the Gardaí had heard similar reports and that a car may have arrived at the hotel and a gun may have been produced and that the car had sped off without any shooting taking place. The complainant was named in the extract as the person who may have witnessed the event outside the hotel. A photograph of the complainant accompanied the article in the Sunday World. The caption on the photograph was “TARGET” followed by the complainant’s name.

The complainant wrote to the editor of the Sunday World to complain about the publication of his photograph with the word ‘TARGET’ written beside it, stating that he had never been a target and that, furthermore, he had not been in attendance at the boxing event in the hotel, so he could not have stepped outside the venue or have witnessed anything that happened outside the venue. The newspaper did not respond to the complainant.

The complainant made a formal complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman stating that Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice had been breached by the Sunday World.

In a submission to the Office of the Press Ombudsman the editor apologised for the failure of the newspaper to respond to the complainant’s letter. This failure was, according to the editor, due to changes in working from home practices during the pandemic and that, as a result, the complainant’s letter was “inadvertently overlooked”. The editor in defending the article stated that the matters the complainant had raised had not been stated as fact in the extract from the book published in the newspaper but had been attributed to sources as possibilities. The editor offered to publish a clarification in the newspaper and to add the text as a postscript to the online article. Wording was provided as follows:

On 10 October,2021 we published an article in which we made reference to (the complainant) in connection with an incident at … hotel in 2015. (The complainant) has subsequently contacted us to state that his position is that he was not at the … hotel that night and so could not have been a target in the incident. We are happy to put his position on record.

The editor also said he would be happy to arrange an interview with the complainant so that he could put his position on the record in more detail.

The complainant was not satisfied with the response of the Sunday World. As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation it was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.

Principle 1

The newspaper article was accompanied by a photograph of the complainant with a caption which stated as fact that he was a “target” of a shooting. The newspaper was prepared to publish a clarification that according to the complainant he was not at the boxing event at the hotel. This clarification would have set the record straight. Principle 1 would have been breached had the newspaper not offered to publish this clarification. Principle 1.2 and 1.3 states

1.2 When a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report or picture has been published, it shall be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

1.3 When appropriate, a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published promptly and with due prominence.

The offer by the editor, although not accepted by the complainant, was sufficient to avoid a breach of Principle 1. Had the complainant agreed to the publication the record would have been set straight.

Principle 4

This Principle states

Everyone has constitutional protection for his or her good name. The press shall not knowingly publish matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, and must take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.

No evidence has been offered that the references to the possible shooting at the hotel in the article were based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations. The source of the information was an anonymous phone caller. The author of the book received confirmation from Garda sources that a possible incident had occurred. In my view the author had taken reasonable care, as required under Principle 4, to check the facts of what she had been told by the phone-caller before publication.

Principle 5

In section 5.2 this Principle states

5.2 Readers are entitled to have news and comment presented with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or in the public interest.

The complainant also complained about the publication of his photograph with the caption “TARGET” on the basis of a breach of his privacy.  If there had been the possibility of a shooting at the hotel on the night of the boxing event it would have been in the public interest to report on this event.  Principle 5.2 qualifies the right to privacy provided something is published in the public interest. The fact that a car was seen at the event on CCTV which was subsequently found burnt out suggests that something sinister may have been planned for the evening. For this reason, I do not believe that Principle 5 was breached.

Note: The complainant has requested that the decision be recorded in a manner that protects his identity.

19 January 2022