18 October, 2024
The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint from Mr Chris Davies about a report published in Kerry’s Eye in the summer of 2024. The complaint is upheld in relation to Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice. Other parts of the complaint are not upheld.
The report was about an ongoing case before the Circuit Court in which a truck driver was on trial for careless driving causing the death of a woman. The report covered most of a page and consisted of linked articles and boxes, with a number of headlines and subheadings. Mr Davies is the late woman’s son.
Mr Davies said Principle 1.2 of the Code of Practice was breached in relation to the newspaper’s reporting and its headlines. He said the headline at the top of the report was “victim blaming”, and that the headline along the lower part of the page, along with a sub-heading beneath it, did not reflect key information published below them and therefore caused distortion.
The editor of Kerry’s Eye expressed sympathy for the bereaved family. However, he denied the report was distorted. He said the main headline was accurate and did not apportion blame, and the other headlines were fair reflections of the contents to which they referred. He said the reporting of evidence was necessarily condensed, based on editorial judgement subject to the requirements of fairness and accuracy.
Decision
This report is in two main parts, each of which is headlined. The main headline is: “’Woman appeared to step in front of truck’”. The headline over the second part of the report is: “Driver saw victim at ‘last minute’’” with a sub-heading “Accused man has 55 years driving experience”. The complainant said the lead headline was “victim blaming”. However, the Press Ombudsman notes that it is a direct and important quote from key evidence given by an eyewitness. It is not in itself in breach of the Code.
However, problems arise as a result of the headline “Driver saw victim at ‘last minute’” over the second part of the report. The Press Ombudsman finds that as asserted by the complainant, this headline significantly fails to reflect key information in the text that follows. This part of the article summarises the statements the driver made to gardai at caution and in a follow-up interview and includes a sub-section in which a garda investigator contradicts evidence given by an eyewitness cited in the first part of the report.
The Press Ombudsman notes that at caution the driver did indeed state that he saw the woman at “last minute”. However, during a subsequent interview he repeatedly referred to not having seen the woman at all. The article quoted the driver as having said: “I never saw the woman I hit” and that he had accelerated because “I had a free run … the crossing was free”. It further quoted him as having said he “did not see anybody towards his right” and that “I just didn’t see her. If I did I would have stopped”.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the driver’s evidence contains a profound contradiction but that the “last minute” headline does not reflect this. Nor does it reflect the garda evidence as reported in the sub-section under the same headline. This is misleading and significantly distorts the report both in terms of the section of the article below it and as a whole.
Headlines summarise a story in a compressed, powerful way. As the entry point to a story, they have to capture readers, who will scan them before deciding whether or not to read the full article. As noted, the Press Ombudsman finds that the main headline, “’Woman appeared to step in front of truck’” is fair. However, the distorted headline which follows – “Driver saw victim at ‘last minute’”- then creates imbalance in the article. It gives no indication that there is other evidence that challenges that version of events.
Headlines provide editorial direction to a story. The Press Ombudsman finds that the cumulative effect of reading the headlines of this article will, due to the misleading headline “Driver saw victim at ‘last minute’” distort the reader’s approach to the article since the summary they provide misleadingly presents just one narrative: An experienced driver was going at a legal speed when a woman stepped out in front of his truck so that he only saw her at the last minute, and she was tragically killed.
The reporting of the case presents a more complex story. The headline “Driver saw victim at ‘last minute’” is significantly misleading and distorts the report, in breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
The Press Ombudsman did not uphold other parts of the complaint.
In relation to Principle 1, the complainant further said that the article failed to give a fair and balanced account of evidence heard in court as it omitted crucial garda forensic evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
The complainant said that Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) was breached because the publication’s reporter was biassed due to his pre-existing connection with the family which employed the driver. He said the reporter showed a lack of professionalism and impartiality during the trial.
The complainant said that Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty) was breached due to misrepresentation of facts, and that significant and relevant information available to the publication had been omitted.
The complainant said that Principle that 7 (Court Reporting) was breached because on the day when it was indicated that the jury would deliberate, Kerry’s Eye had published a page of coverage that was distorted in favour of the defence. He questioned the fairness and accuracy of the report given what he saw as the absence of an outline of the prosecution’s main evidence.
The publication strongly rejected the suggestion of bias and of unprofessional journalistic behaviour and said there was no evidence to support these claims. It said that assertions by the complainant that evidence was misrepresented or false were incorrect. It said the report was a fair and accurate account of an ongoing trial, the conclusion of which was reported in the publication’s following issue. It said there was no obligation on it to delay publication in order to report on specific evidence.
The Press Ombudsman has insufficient evidence to determine the significance or otherwise of those parts of the forensic evidence to which the complainant said breached Principle 1 of the Code.
The Press Ombudsman finds that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the publication showed bias because of an inappropriate influence of undisclosed interests. Nor is there evidence of unprofessional journalistic behaviour. There is no breach of Principle 2 of the Code.
The complainant and the publication disagree on the technical details of certain evidence regarding driving speeds. However, the Press Ombudsman finds that the significant point in this regard is that the accuracy of the statement that the truck’s tachograph showed the driving was lawful is not disputed. She finds nothing in the article to suggest that the publication did not strive for fair procedures and honesty in procuring and publishing the information it published. Nor does she find “false reporting” or misrepresentation of facts. There is no breach of Principle 3 of the Code.
On Principle 7 the Press Ombudsman notes that it is normal and necessary practice for publications to report on such evidence as is available to them at the point at which they reach their deadlines for going to press. This case had not concluded when Kerry’s Eye reached that point, and the report ends by noting that the trial was continuing. Jury members are routinely advised by judges to base their deliberations solely on the evidence they have heard in court. There is no breach of Principle 7 of the Code.
The complainant asserts that the forensic evidence was the “main evidence” for the prosecution, but as previously stated, the Press Ombudsman has insufficient evidence to make a finding in this regard.
