3765/2018 - A Woman and Extra.ie

The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by a woman (who has asked that her name should not be published*) that Extra.ie breached Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland. Claims that Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) were breached are not upheld. The Press Ombudsman also found that he has insufficient evidence to make a decision on a claim that Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty) was breached.

On 18 March 2018 Extra.ie published a report   which stated that the woman, who had carried out work for the Gardaí, had been convicted of a criminal offence in another jurisdiction several years previously, and had been sentenced to serve a prison term.  The report stated that the woman had done work which formed part of a Garda investigation into a serious criminal offence. The report was illustrated by several photographs of the woman including one of her answering her front door at her home.

The woman complained that the report had breached the Code of Practice. She acknowledged her conviction but stated that she was not a public figure and that she had not spent the period mentioned in prison.  She denied working on the case referenced in the report. She said she had lost her job as a result of the publication of the report.  She claimed  a reporter called to her door and harassed her in front of visitors and her children. She stated that she had not given permission for her photograph to be taken. 

The editor of Extra.ie in response stated that it had not breached the woman’s privacy or damaged her reputation and that what it published “was of considerable public interest”. The editor reiterated claims made in the report and denied harassment of   the woman at her home stating that  the intention was  to give her  an opportunity to respond to the information Extra.ie was preparing to publish.  In regard to the publication of the photograph of the woman at her doorstep the editor stated that the photograph had been taken from a “public place and no impropriety was involved either in its taking or publication”.  The editor offered to take down the report from the online archive of Extra.ie as “a sign of … good faith”.

The woman responded and said that she was not satisfied with the editor’s offer to take down the article from its website. She repeated her claim that the reporter who called to her door had failed to exercise discretion. She also claimed that the reporter had called “random agencies telling them about (her) conviction”. She repeated that she was “standing inside her house” when the photograph was taken, where she had the right to privacy. Finally, she repeated that her past conviction was not of “sufficient public interest” to justify the report.

As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation it was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.

People have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are within their homes. Any breach of that privacy would have to be justified as in the public interest.  In this instance Extra.ie already had  other photographs of the woman. There was no justification for the photograph of the woman within her home to be published. The defence put forward by Extra.ie is not persuasive. The fact that the photograph was taken from a “public place” is irrelevant.  The woman’s privacy was breached by the publication of the photograph.

Not Upheld part of the complaint

Principle 1

The complainant has provided no evidence of any inaccuracy in the report. She claims that the report said that she spent a particular term in prison. The report had actually stated that she was sentenced to this term.   This is not disputed.  She argues that there was no public interest in publishing information about her conviction, but the information published is a matter of public interest and can be justified.  In regard to the report of another claim in the article, Extra.ie did not report the claim as fact, rather as a claim made by another person.  

Principle 4

This Principle states that everyone has constitutional protection for his or her good name. The press shall not knowingly publish matters based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations. There is no evidence that the report was based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations. 

Insufficient Evidence

Principle 3

This Principle states that the press shall not obtain information through harassment. The complainant claims that she was harassed by the reporter.  Extra.ie denies that its reporter harassed the complainant. Neither side offers any evidence to support these contradicting claims.  I have insufficient evidence available to me to determine this part of the complaint.

6 July 2018

* Note: this decision was anonymised by the Press Ombudsman in August 2023 at the request of the complainant.