The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint by Mr Kenny Jacobs that The Irish Times breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice in an article published in print and online in July 2025.
The article is a political news report which asserts that Mr Jacobs failed to declare his private airline investments to the Department of Transport before he joined the board of the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) as chief executive and an ex-officio member of the board in 2023.
The article stated that this was despite the then Minister for Transport, Mr Eamon Ryan, asking him to set out any potential conflicts of interest. The article noted that the Department had said that Mr Jacobs advised the Minister that he had “no conflict of interest” to declare when joining the board.
The article arose out of a Freedom of Information request from a residents’ association in the context of its campaign against night flights and a new runway at Dublin airport. A campaign spokesman was quoted as stating that it was clear that Mr Jacobs “was obliged to bring to the attention of the Minister and his department any potential conflicts of interest”, but that he had not brought to their attention his shareholdings in 12 airlines that operate out of Dublin airport.
Complaint
The complaint was made by solicitors acting for Mr Jacobs. They said the article implied their client had behaved improperly whereas the publication knew that he had complied with all his legal obligations and believed that no conflict of interest arose in relation to his appointment.
On Principle 1, they said that the headline “alleges a failure on our client’s part where none exists”. They said their client had acted in line with the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies as required at all times.
The solicitors said their client had been “completely transparent” about his shareholdings and that the board of the DAA had not regarded them as constituting any conflict of interest following the appropriate disclosure of interests via the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO). They said the publication had been made aware of the SIPO declaration.
The solicitors also said it was inaccurate and misleading to state that the DAA had not replied to questions about Mr Jacob’s “failure to disclose his airline shares to the Minister” because in response to pre-publication queries from The Irish Times, it had sent the publication a copy of a statement it had made available to it in 2024.
This statement included a quotation from the then Chair of the DAA to the effect that Mr Jacobs had complied with “all relevant corporate governance and state ethics disclosure requirements”. Acknowledging that the statement was referred to in the article, the solicitors said that this was in the penultimate paragraph and was “lost” in terms of what was implied by the article and its headline.
On Principle 2, the solicitors said that the central allegation that their client’s shareholdings amounted to a conflict of interest was presented as an established fact in the headline, the sub-headline and the body of the article, when in truth it was “no more than conjecture”.
Response from Publication
The editor of the publication said that the complaint had “made much” of the fact that the complainant had disclosed his shareholdings to SIPO, but that the focus of the article was on how the complainant had not declared his shareholdings to the Minister despite Mr Ryan’s request that “you bring to the attention of my department any matter(s) that could potentially cause a conflict of interest for you in the role to which you are now being appointed”. (This letter, from which this is a quote, was provided to the Press Ombudsman by the complainant’s solicitors.)
Under Principle 1 of the Code, the editor quoted the above line from the letter, marking for emphasis the words “of my Department” and “could potentially”.
Asserting that the article was published in the public interest, the editor said it had clearly striven for truth and accuracy. He said it had sought information from appropriate sources, had quoted the 2024 DAA statement that the shareholdings had been “fully disclosed” to SIPO by the complainant, and had reported factually on what the complainant told the Oireachtas committee hearing in 2024.
On Principle 2 of the Code, the editor stated that the headline of the online article made no reference to a conflict of interest “instead stating factually: ‘DAA chief failed to tell Eamon Ryan about airline shares before appointment.’” He said the print headline had the same factual focus: “Airport chief failed to tell Ryan about airline shares”. He said the online sub-headline was accurate and in line with the statement from the Department of Transport quoted in the article. The sub-headline read: “Kenny Jacobs told minister he had ‘no conflict of interest’ when joining board of State airport company”.
Denying that there had been any breaches of the Code of Practice, the editor invited the complainant to submit a letter to the editor to be considered for publication and suggested that this letter could set out why the complainant believed his shareholdings were not a potential conflict of interest and why he did not declare them to the Minister for Transport.
The complainant declined to take up this invitation.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman has considered all the documents provided to her in connection with this complaint.
She finds that the article focusses on a particular aspect of the complainant’s interactions with various public bodies, namely his communications with the Minister for Transport and his Department.
The Minister asked the complainant to advise his department of any potential conflicts of interest. The complainant stated that he had no conflict of interest to declare. He did not address the question of potential conflicts of interest to the Minister or the department.
The Press Ombudsman notes the assertion by the complainant’s solicitors that the publication implied he had behaved improperly in not declaring his airline investments. She finds that the use of the word “failed” does imply that the publication considers it might have been appropriate to make such a declaration. The Press Ombudsman finds that this is reasonable in the context in which the article was written, which is that two years on from his appointment, the complainant’s airline shareholdings have, given his role, become a matter of public controversy.
The article acknowledges the complainant’s own view that there was no conflict of interest. It notes that he told an Oireachtas committee in 2024 about his airline shareholdings. It notes that the DAA said he had disclosed his shareholdings to SIPO and that he had “complied with all the relevant corporate governance and state ethics disclosure requirements”.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication correctly identifies that compliance with disclosure requirements is not the same as responding to a request from a Minister to “bring to the attention” of his department “any matter(s) that could potentially cause a conflict of interest …”.
She finds that the publication sets the story out accurately. It bases its assertions on documentary evidence obtained from an appropriate range of sources. There is no breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication does not claim – in headlines, sub-headlines or in the report – that the complainant’s shareholdings amount to a conflict of interest, whether as a matter of fact or of conjecture. There is therefore no breach of Principle 2 of the Code.