The Press Ombudsperson has decided not to uphold a complaint from a not-for-profit organisation that the Limerick Post breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 7 (Court Reporting) of the Code of Practice. The complaint concerned a news report published about a High Court ruling. The article was published in print, online and on social media.
The Article
The article reported that the High Court had issued a ruling quashing a decision by An Coimisiún Pleanála to allow the extension of a major industrial plant. It stated that this was as a result of “the successful High Court judicial review challenge brought by [the not-for-profit organisation]...” against the planning authority's earlier decision to allow the extension to go ahead.
The article went on to note that the proposed extension had “also been opposed by” another group which had made submissions to the planning authority. It summarised some of the reasons given by this group for the stance it had taken.
The article provided some background context and the grounds on which the High Court had quashed the planning decision. It concluded that the Judge in the case had provisionally ruled that the not-for-profit organisation should have its costs, and that they had adjourned the case to a later date for mention.
The Complaint
Under Principle 1 the complainant stated that the publication had profiled and platformed the other group, thus creating the false impression that it was a co-applicant or successful party in the legal proceedings.
It pointed out that the title of the proceedings clearly showed that the not-for-profit organisation was the sole applicant. It said the article distorted the true picture and had misinformed the public. It stated that the publication had failed to take remedial action when it was alerted to this “error”.
Under Principle 7 the complainant asserted that court reporting must be “clear and fair”. It said the article should have explicitly stated “who took the case and who did not” and that the publication had abdicated its editorial responsibility through its misleading framing of the article, and its reliance on the public's assumed knowledge of High Court procedures.
The complainant sought a correction of the article, and in correspondence, an apology.
The Response
The publication stated that the article was “a fair and accurate account of events” in which it was clearly stated in the third paragraph that the judicial review had been brought by the not-for-profit organisation, which was thereby given “full credit for the High Court success”.
It said it was made clear that other group's submission had been an earlier one to the planning authority and not the High Court, and that the information about it was given in “just two sentences” further down the article. It said this did not discredit or obfuscate the work of the complainant. It further stated that the article had provided contextual information that did no disservice to the complainant.
The publication stated that it had always had a positive relationship with the complainant and respected its work. It said this was reflected in its extensive archive of articles about its work.
The Decision
The Press Ombudsperson has read and considered the material submitted by the parties, and the correspondence exchanged between them before and during the complaints process.
She finds no basis on which to uphold the complaint. She notes that the publication stated in the opening paragraphs of the article that it was the not-for-profit organisation that brought the successful High Court challenge. This is accurate, and appropriately prominent.
She finds that the publication makes it clear further down the article that the submission by the other organisation was to An Coimisiún Pleanála. There is no suggestion that it was part of the High Court case.
While she understands the frustration expressed by the complainant regarding the space given to the other group, and the fact that other matters specific to the High Court proceedings are not included, she notes that these are matters of editorial discretion. There is no breach of Principle 1 and no breach of Principle 7.