The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint by the Rev. Guy and Mrs Heather Chave-Cox that a number of articles in the Irish Independent about a property in Co Sligo in which Mrs Chave-Cox has an interest were in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines. A number of other complaints were not upheld.
The articles – published on 23, 24, 27 and 28 August – reported on matters connected with a property in Rosses Point. In the first of these articles, the newspaper stated that several solicitors’ letters had been sent to locals in Rosses Point on behalf of the owners of the property, the Middleton Estate, telling them that they had 28 days to hand over property to people they had never met. This statement was repeated in a photo caption in the same issue, and variants of it appeared in the other articles, supporting much of the subsequent coverage. These statements were, in turn, reinforced by the headline to the article of 24 August: “Elderly ‘frightened’ by demands to give up their homes,” and to that of 27 August, which stated “Vicar’s wife defends her claim to seaside village.”
The complainants stated that only one 28-day letter had been sent to a local resident, and that this was in connection with a vacant property. They maintained that on these grounds all of the statements in the four articles stating or implying that more than one 28-day letter issued to local residents, and headlines based on this assertion, were significantly inaccurate. The newspaper maintained, on the basis of information from what it described as a long-standing and reliable source, that more than one 28-day letter had issued.
It declined to respond to the complainant’s suggestion that something might be published as a resolution of the matter.
While the complainants confirmed that three legal letters had issued, all in relation to the same vacant property, they emphasised that – contrary to the statements complained about in the articles – only one 28-day letter had been sent to a local resident. This distinction is, in the context of this complaint, very significant, because the newspaper’s assertion that more than one 28-day letter issued does not provide any evidence that more than one 28-day letter issued to local residents, and therefore neither supports the statements made in the article that a number of residents received such letters, nor disproves the complainant’s assertion that only one such letter was sent to a local resident.
The statement in the headline to the article of 24 August that elderly people were being frightened is attributed to an anonymous source and may well be correct. However, from the evidence cited above it is also clear that they could not have been frightened – as the headline stated– by demands to give up their homes, given the fact that only one 28-day letter had been sent to a local resident, and that this resident was not the occupier of the premises referred to in the letter.
In addition, while the newspaper also maintained that the headline to the article on August 27 did not mean to imply that the complainant was laying claim to the entire village, it is difficult to see how the statement that Mrs Chave-Cox was defending ‘her claim to seaside village’ can imply anything other than what the words mean.
While the article of 27 August, published after the complainants had contacted the newspaper, reported their denial that more than one 28-day letter had been sent to a local resident, and the article of 28 August said that “a legal letter” had been sent to the home of one local resident, these statements did not amount to an adequate correction, in the light of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice, of the significant inaccuracies in the articles.
While it appears that the significant inaccuracies identified above were published in good faith and based on a source the newspaper respected, this does not obviate the requirements of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice for the correction of significant inaccuracies promptly and with due prominence. The complaint under Principle 1 in respect of the inaccuracies specified above is therefore upheld.
A number of complaints were made under Principle 4 that statements in the article of 24 August were rumours that the reporter should have checked before publication. Although it is not a requirement of the Code of Practice that every rumour or conjecture should be fully checked for accuracy by a reporter prior to publication, there is no evidence that any attempt was made to contact either the complainants or the Estate’s representatives prior to the publication of this particular article, and this was a breach of the requirement of this Principle that publications should take reasonable care in checking facts before publication. This complaint is therefore also upheld.
A number of other complaints were not upheld.
Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy)
The newspaper disputed the significance of a number of other statements in the article that were the subject of complaints under Principle 1 about alleged errors of historical fact. While the evidence of the complainant supports the view that these statements reflected, at least, a lack of attention to detail, none of them, if inaccurate, was significant enough to warrant a decision that they were in breach of the Code of Practice. Other statements about which they complained under this Principle on the grounds that they were inaccurate because they were based on the core inaccuracies identified in the decision to uphold the complaint under Principle 1 do not, in the circumstances, require a separate decision under this Principle.
Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment)
A complaint that a statement in the articles published on 24, 27 and 28 August relating to the posting of notices in Rosses Point was a breach of Principle 2 is not upheld, because there is no significant difference between what the newspaper published and the complainant’s version of events. A further complaint under Principle 2 that the description of the 28-day letter as “heavy-handed” is also not upheld, given that the traditional legal language contained in this letter, which has been seen by the Press Ombudsman, is by definition peremptory.
Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty)
A complaint under Principle 3 that the behaviour of a reporter and a photographer had been a breach of this Principle’s injunction against harassment is not upheld. While the involvement of these journalists was evidently persistent to a degree, and unwelcome to the complainants, their behaviour did not, on the balance of the evidence, constitute harassment.
Principle 4 (Respect for Rights)
There was insufficient evidence that a number of statements complained of under Principle 4 about the articles published on 23, 27 and 28 August were based on unfounded accusations or malicious misrepresentation as is required to support a decision that they constituted a breach of this Principle. While it was also clear from the evidence that the information published on August 23 relating to the views of the complainants and the Estate had been garnered from, but not attributed to, earlier reports in other newspapers, this is not of itself sufficient evidence to support the complaint that this was a breach of the requirement of Principle 4 to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication in respect of this article. Nor is there evidence to support similar complaints about the articles of 27 and 28 August. The question of the headline of the article of 27 August has already been the subject of a decision under Principle 1, and therefore does not require a separate decision under this Principle.
The complainants also maintained, under Principle 4, that references to “English-based landlords” and “English absentee landlords” affected their good names. The question of whether Mrs Chave-Cox – a direct descendant of an emigrant family of Irish landowners – should have been referred to in this way, is moot, but the phrase does not in any case, in the absence of any evidence of malicious misrepresentation, present a breach of the Code of Practice.
The complainants further maintained that references to the Rev. Chave-Cox in the articles of 27 and 28 August breached Principle 4, because he is not a shareowner of the property in question, and his good name was affected by being associated with certain statements in the articles. The Press Ombudsman is satisfied that any references to the Rev. Guy Chave-Cox in these articles were peripheral and do not present a breach of Principle 4.
Principle 5 (Privacy)
Rev. Chave-Cox and his wife complained that their photograph was taken while they were standing on a private driveway. Although there was evidence, disputed by the newspaper, that the complainants were on private property at the time the photograph was taken, private property is not synonymous with a private place, and it is reasonable to infer that a “private place,” in the context of the Code of Practice, means any place – public or private – in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There was no persuasive evidence that the driveway occupied by the complainant at the time the photograph was taken was such a place. This complaint is therefore not upheld.
Principle 8 (Prejudice)
In relation to their complaint made under Principle 8, the complainants provided evidence that a number of facebook entries of an abusive and threatening nature to them personally, which included an entry on the facebook page of the Rev. Chave-Cox’s church, and a number of blog postings, had been directly related by the posters to the Irish Independent coverage. These postings were, as the newspaper correctly observed, vile and reprehensible, but the prime responsibility for such comments must, in all except the most extraordinary circumstances, be borne by the posters themselves, and not by the newspaper concerned. The factual errors already mentioned in the decision under Principle 1, although significant in themselves, cannot reasonably be assumed to have been responsible for the general tenor of the comments posted on the various blogs and websites mentioned in this complaint, none of which had any connection whatsoever with the newspaper concerned. The complaint under Principle 8 is therefore not upheld.
