The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from a man about an article and podcast published in September 2024. The article serves as an introduction to the podcast which is part of the Indo Daily series. Its core element is a structured discussion between three journalists. This is interspersed with clips from news items which were broadcast in the course of just over a decade. This decision will refer to the podcast which should be understood to include the article.
The podcast explores the history of involvement by the man’s parents in the ownership of a substantial property portfolio, a long running dispute with a bank, multiple court cases, and the repossession by the bank of a family home. It also refers to the couple’s entry into and exit from bankruptcy. It contextualises these matters with reference to the Celtic Tiger period, the global economic crash, and the aftermath of these events.
The man asserted that the podcast breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 7 (Court Reporting) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice. He said he and his family had suffered reputational damage and sought the removal of the podcast, a formal public apology and the retraction of certain comments.
Independent.ie denied it had breached the Code of Practice and said it had addressed all of the matters raised by the man in correspondence that preceded his making of the formal complaint to the Press Ombudsman. This correspondence was made available to the Press Ombudsman.
Decision
On Principle 1 of the Code, the man claimed the publication had made false, incorrect and misleading assertions about his family’s legal dealings with the bank, in particular regarding events leading up to the repossession of the house. The publication stated that it had given an “entirely fair summary” of what happened.
The Press Ombudsman notes that in the course of just under 30 minutes the podcast covers lengthy and contentious dealings between the family and the bank, the complicated historical context for this dispute, and other matters.
Inevitably, this involves paraphrasing complex proceedings and events. The style is conversational, the language at times informal and colloquial. However, the Press Ombudsman finds the depiction of the events, including the legal dealings that led to the repossession, accurately summarises the facts, key elements of which are set out in legal documents referred to in correspondence provided to the Press Ombudsman by both parties to this complaint. There is no breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
On Principle 2 of the Code, the man stated that the podcast contains speculative commentary and unverified claims as fact. He said that it presented unsubstantiated claims of fraud and of improper attempts to shield assets from the bank. In response, the publication referred to contemporaneous reporting of these matters which it said supported its account of legal arguments put forward by the bank that were, the publication noted, ultimately successful.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the podcast bases its commentary on evidence presented in open court and which led to a finding in favour of the bank. She also notes that the podcast does not refer to fraud. She finds no breach of Principle 2 of the Code.
On Principle 5 of the Code the Press Ombudsman notes that it is in the public interest to be informed about the subject matter of the podcast. The man stated that the podcast breached the Principle by disclosing private and confidential financial details, including the opinions and views of bank staff. The Press Ombudsman does not find any such disclosures, and notes that in its response the publication cited a Court of Appeal judgement to show relevant material that was on the public record. She finds that the publication was free to refer to comments made contemporaneously by bank officials to journalists about cases which have since concluded. There is no breach of Principle 5 of the Code.
On Principle 7 of the Code, the complainant states that the podcast failed to report court proceedings accurately. He cites again the example he relied upon in asserting a breach of Principle 1 of the Code concerning the basis on which the family remained in the house for a period. He states that the podcast “oversimplifies complex legal issues” and “invents narratives” thereby distorting public perceptions and misrepresenting legal rulings. The publication stated in response that the podcast had to provide a “high level overview” of court proceedings.
The Press Ombudsman notes again that providing an overview of multiple court cases inevitably requires the summarising of a great deal of detail. She also notes that the podcast repeatedly refers back to the public record to support its commentary on litigation about aspects of the long running dispute. The narrative that emerges aligns with the known facts. She finds that Principle 7 of the Code was not breached.
6 December 2024
This decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.