The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from a woman about an article published in the Irish Examiner in September 2023. Consideration of the complaint was delayed due to legal proceedings which have now concluded.
The article to which the complaint refers is an amended version of an earlier report. The Press Ombudsman notes that her decision is solely about the amended report.
The article is a court report about the complainant’s successful application for a domestic violence order involving allegations of assault described by the judge as “extremely serious”. The alleged assailant was a member of the woman’s family. The judge also said that he was troubled by evidence given of threats and cruelty to a family pet.
The complainant stated that the report breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights), Principle 5 (Privacy), Principle 6 (Protection of Sources), Principle 7 (Court Reporting) and Principle 8 (Prejudice).
On Principle 1, she stated that although an earlier report had been edited following a complaint she had made to the editor, certain inaccuracies remained.
On Principle 2, she said the publication had made assumptions about one of the matters reported.
On Principle 4, she said her good name had been damaged as she was identified as a domestic abuse victim.
On Principle 5, she said her privacy and that of her family had been breached, and said there had been no need to state that she had been attacked in her home, or to refer to a weapon. She said she had been quoted without her permission. She said the report had not shown sympathy to her over her personal grief.
On Principle 6, she said the report had given details that could lead to her being identified.
On Principle 7, she said references to other charges facing the assailant were “pre-judging” of her relative.
On Principle 8, she said the publication had shown prejudice towards her because of her circumstances. The woman asked for the online article to be removed.
The Irish Examiner declined to take the article down. It said it had made certain edits to the earlier article “at the editor’s discretion and in recognition of your distress” and denied that there were, or had been, inaccuracies or any other breaches of the Code. It said the article was a “faithful and accurate account of court proceedings” which fell within its mandate as a news publisher, and that this was a matter of public interest.
It said it did not believe the complainant was identifiable in the report, and that it had made “every effort” to accommodate the distress she had expressed in relation to an earlier report. It said that in court proceedings quotes from parties could be published as a matter of public record and noted that respect for the feelings of grieving families did not restrict this right. It said the matter of confidential sources did not arise. It said Principle 8 did not apply in this case.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman appreciates from the submissions made by the complainant that she has suffered greatly as a result of the traumatic events that have happened in her family and that she was further distressed by the Irish Examiner’s coverage of the court case which arose from these events. Whereas she had believed this was a “private family court”, she was faced with reading graphic evidence including quotes from her own statement.
Principle 5 of the Code of Practice requires publications to show respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals, and to take account of the feelings of families in situations of grief or shock. However, the publication invokes the Code’s qualifying statement that this “should not prevent publication of matters of public record”.
The Press Ombudsman notes that this hearing was in a Family Law Court the proceedings of which are not on the public record. The court does however permit journalists to attend hearings and report on them, subject to a prohibition on publishing anything which could identify parties. In these circumstances, the Press Ombudsman finds that what the Code protects by reference to the public record should be taken to mean matters which a journalist is present in court to record and legally entitled to publish.
The Press Ombudsman considers that this report does not provides details that could identify the complainant. It names a county, a court and a hospital but does not specify where the complainant lives. Violence against women in their own homes by male family members is at record levels throughout Ireland, with cruelty to pets a not uncommon feature. The publication is entitled to assert its right to report the proceedings under the Code of Practice. The Press Ombudsman finds that Principle 5 of the Code has not been breached.
As the complainant is not identified, it follows that there is no risk to her good name, and no breach of Principle 4 of the Code. The Press Ombudsman also accepts the publication’s assertion that publication of the article is in the public interest. Domestic violence is a matter about which the public needs to be informed.
The Press Ombudsman finds no inaccuracy such as would breach Principle 1 of the Code, and no failure to distinguish fact from comment such as would breach Principle 2 of the Code. In relation to Principle 7, the Press Ombudsman finds nothing in the article that risks leading to any pre-judgement. There is no breach of Principle 7 of the Code. Principles 6 and 8 of the Code do not apply in this case. The former concerns confidential journalistic sources and the latter applies only to people in certain categories.
8 October 2024
