The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Irish Independent took sufficient remedial action to resolve parts of a complaint by Mr John O’Donoghue through his lawyers in relation to two articles and a podcast published in May 2025. Other parts of the complaint were not upheld.
Mr O’Donoghue is a former government minister and was Ceann Comhairle for a period until, amid controversy over revelations about the scale of his expenses, he resigned, admitting that he was “embarrassed” about costs incurred on his behalf and “sorry” they had occurred.
The material was published at a time when rows were taking place in the Dáil about, among other things, the position of the current Ceann Comhairle. The publication revisited several previous controversies, with one headline referring to “the expenses scandals that cost TDs everything”.
Under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice the complainant said that “untrue, inaccurate, exaggerated and misleading claims” had been made about him in the first of the articles to be published. He cited three specific claims about expenses which he disputed.
He stated that the use of his photograph alongside one of a former minister who had been imprisoned for fraud linked the two and insinuated that he had acted dishonestly, whereas, he said: “I always acted honestly, professionally and in the best interests of the State during my long period of public service”. He noted that the validity of his expenses had never been challenged during departmental reviews and audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General. He could never, he said, have had “loose receipts” that were referred to in a headline.
Under Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), the complainant said the articles and podcast contained “numerous instances of comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports being reported as if they are fact”. He once again referred to the three “specific false claims” already cited under Principle 1 of the Code.
Noting that the publication claimed that it had published similar material about the complainant in the past and that he appeared not to have complained, he said he had, in fact, complained about such coverage by the Irish Independent, and had issued legal proceedings which “ultimately lapsed”.
The complainant said the publication should “at the very least” have offered him the right of reply before publishing the first of the May 2025 articles, and before replicating the claims made therein four days later.
Under Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty), the complainant once again said that as the subject of “damaging claims” he should have been offered a right of reply prior to publication. He said his legitimate expenses had been exaggerated “to conjure the false impression that they were extraordinary for a minister in government at that time”.
He said references had been made to limousines which were in fact ordinary cars, and that “it was the norm” for cars to be hired for every minister travelling abroad. He said it was likewise normal for ministers to be provided with access to VIP airport lounges, and to make provision to drive them to their departure terminal.
He said the publication had presented his expenses as if they were “dishonest or exceptional” when they were not, and that he had in fact limited his expenses in various ways so as not to “burden taxpayers”.
Under Principle 4 (Respect of Rights), the complainant said the failure to take reasonable care to prevent the publication of material based on unfounded allegations had unjustifiably impacted his reputation and that corrective action was warranted.
The Irish Independent denied any breaches of any of the Principles of the Code cited by the complainant.
It noted that in correspondence pre-dating Mr O’Donoghue’s complaint to the Press Ombudsman, it had asked him to provide more information on the “specific false claims” he had highlighted, and that he had now done so. While commenting that it did not think that these “constitute material changes worthy of a correction”, in each of the three instances raised by the complainant it stated that it had now amended its previous publications to reflect the statements he had provided. It had also removed from the podcast the sections in which the three expenses challenged by the complainant were discussed. It had appended a correction note to all of the amended material.
It noted that it had published eight others claims, the veracity of which the complainant had not challenged.
The editor stated that he understood that a former request for clarification and apology had been refused and that it had no record of the litigation to which the complainant referred.
It said that while it normally put any critical or damaging claims to a relevant party before publication, in this case the articles were “merely repeating factual statements that had previously been published” by it, and that as such there was no need to contact him.
It said it had already explained the link between the convicted minister and the complainant and did not intend to repeat this. However, it denied that the link had the meaning attributed to it. It argued that the complainant’s statements in relation to his expenses contrasted with his resignation speech, noting that in this he had said he was “embarrassed” that such “considerable costs” had been incurred, that he understood why people had been shocked, and that he was “sorry that these costs occurred”.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman finds that upon receiving the complaint under Principle 1 the publication amended the material it had published to address specific points and that it noted that it had done so. She does not find that the publication of the complainant’s photograph alongside that of a politician jailed for fraud links the two other than in the fact that both were involved in press reports to do with expenses about which there was controversy. She finds that there was no implication or suggestion in the material published that the complainant had done anything illegal. The Press Ombudsman finds that the action taken by the publication constituted sufficient remedial action under Principle 1 of the Code.
She finds that this action also remedied the complaint under Principle 2 of the Code.
In relation to Principle 4, the Press Ombudsman finds that the publication was entitled to argue that it had published information, the substantial accuracy of which it still asserted. On receipt of Mr O’Donoghue’s complaint which drew attention to a number of statements which he said were inaccurate, it removed certain details. The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication took sufficient remedial action to resolve the complaint under Principle 4.
Under Principle 3, the Press Ombudsman finds that the publication was not required to offer a right of reply in circumstances in which it was revisiting a historic controversy rather than making fresh claims. She accepts the publication’s assertion that the corrections it agreed to make were details and that the greater part of what it published was unchallenged as “factual statements”.
She finds that there was no assertion that the complainant’s expenses were illegal. She accepts the publication’s assertion that the former minister’s attempt to depict his expenses as not extraordinary but normal is at odds with his resignation speech which expressed embarrassment that “such considerable costs” had been incurred and with his statement that he was “sorry”. She finds that Principle 3 was not breached.