731/2021 - Mr Tony Sugrue and Kerry’s Eye
The Press Council of Ireland upheld an appeal made by the editor of Kerry’s Eye following a decision of the Press Ombudsman to uphold a complaint made by Mr Tony Sugrue.
On 8 January 2021 the Press Ombudsman upheld a complaint made by Mr Tony Sugrue that the Kerry’s Eye breached Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland.
On 15 October 2020 Kerry’s Eye ran a front page report under the heading “Virus chaos as courts collapse”. The report continued on page four. It outlined how “All District Courts in Kerry were dramatically adjourned on Wednesday after a senior garda officer confirmed he had tested positive for Covid-19.” The senior garda was named in the article as Garda Inspector Tony Sugrue. The report was accompanied by a photograph of Inspector Sugrue.
Mr Sugrue wrote to the editor of Kerry’s Eye objecting to the use of his “private medical information” in the report. He pointed out that his name had not been released by the Judge in open court. He noted that in accordance with public health regulations and advice “all media outlets have been requested to not identify any positive Covid-19 cases to avoid stigma”.
As Mr Sugrue did not receive a reply to his letter to the editor he made a formal complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman. He complained that Kerry’s Eye had breached Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty), Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 7 (Court Reporting) of the Code of Practice by publishing his private medical information without his consent.
In a submission to the Office of the Press Ombudsman the editor of Kerry’s Eye defended the article, stating that the subject matter of the article was of “obvious public interest” and that the events which had unfolded in court on the day had “shocked those present”. He stated “the fact that the person who had informed the court that he had tested positive (leading directly to the suspension) was a senior member of An Garda Siochána was hugely significant and, therefore, more than met the threshold for the engagement of the public interest principle contained in the Press Council’s Code of Practice”. The editor noted that under Principle 5 “… the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or in the public interest”. He further drew attention to the fact that Kerry’s Eye had never stated that Mr Sugrue’s medical diagnosis was disclosed “in court”, but that it had emerged during a “court recess”.
As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation it was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.
I believe that the report published on 15 October 2020 breached Principle 5. The information about the Covid test result was not given in open court and therefore the newspaper cannot rely on the media’s right to publish anything said during court proceedings. The newspaper was of course entitled to report on the disruption of court proceedings on the day, but was not entitled to name Mr Sugrue. The result of the Covid test Mr Sugrue had received was private medical information and should not have been published without his consent.
Mr Sugrue also complained that Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty) and Principle 7 (Court Reporting) had been breached. Principle 3 requires the press to strive at all times for fair procedures and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information. Principle 7 requires the press to ensure that court reports are fair and accurate. The additional private information published in the report which was judged to be in breach of Principle 5 was not a breach of Principle 7. There was no breach of either Principle in what was published on 15 October.
8 January 2021