A Man and the Irish Daily Star

Complaint

The complainant claimed that an article published in the Irish Daily Star was, in a considerable number of instances, in breach of seven of the ten Principles of the Code of Practice: 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3 (Fairness and Honesty), 4 (Respect for Rights), 5 (Privacy), 7 (Court Reporting) and 8 (Incitement to Hatred). The article complained of was primarily a contemporaneous report of civil proceedings involving the complainant and another party. Reference was made in the article to earlier tribunal proceedings involving the complainant and the same person. The complainant’s primary contention was that the publication of certain information that had formed part of the court and tribunal proceedings, and the omission of what he considered to be key evidence relating to both proceedings, amounted to the publication of an unfair and inaccurate report, and was in that and in other respects in breach of the Code of Practice.

The newspaper stated that it was satisfied that the report complied with the Code of Practice.

Decision

A core issue to be decided in relation to all of the complaints submitted by the complainant is whether the report was fair and accurate. The complainant did not claim that the report of the court or tribunal proceedings was significantly factually inaccurate.

Although the Code of Practice does not define fairness in any detail in relation to reports of court or tribunal proceedings, a reasonable person reading such reports has a right to expect that they contain elements of the evidence adduced by both sides, as well as a fair and adequate summary of the judgment. Newspaper accounts of court or tribunal proceedings are not, and do not purport to be, transcripts, and litigants or witnesses may well take exception to the omission from such reports of evidence considered critical by them, but such reports cannot be considered to be unfair or inaccurate solely on the basis that detail considered vital by one of the participants in contested proceedings has been omitted.

Principle 1

The complainant argued that, because of certain omissions, the newspaper had not striven for truth and accuracy. However, the newspaper report included information about the claims made by both parties. On this basis, the report cannot be considered to be untruthful or inaccurate.

The article also referred to an earlier tribunal hearing, in which both parties were involved. Again, the article included details of what can reasonably be assumed to be the key claims made by both parties.

While the complainant argued that the article contained a number of inaccuracies about personal relationships that he had had in the past, in breach of Principle 1, the alleged inaccuracies are not considered to be “significant”, as provided for under Principle 1.2.

Principle 2

The complainant argued that the re-publication of material from an earlier tribunal hearing amounted to the publication of conjecture and unconfirmed reports as if they were fact. The material complained of was, however, a repetition of allegations or claims which became part of the public domain as a result of the earlier hearing, and which were presented as such, and not as fact. The material complained of made it clear in all cases that the findings of the earlier tribunal had been in favour of the complainant. As this material was not presented as conjecture or as an unconfirmed report, it does not present a breach of the Code.

Principle 3

The complainant maintained that the journalist whose name appeared on the article was not present at the court hearing, and that the newspaper therefore had not striven for fairness and honesty. Principle 3.1 provides that newspapers should strive for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information: an allegation that the journalist was absent from the courtroom, for whatever period of time, is not evidence that the acquisition and publication of the information concerned breached this Principle.

Principle 4

The complainant maintained that the newspaper failed to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication and, by omission of the complainant’s denials, allowed unfounded accusations and misrepresentation to be presented as fact. There is no requirement in the Code of Practice for a newspaper to check the truth or otherwise of claims or allegations made in the course of evidence given during court or tribunal proceedings provided that the report makes clear that they are claims or allegations. In addition, there is no requirement on a newspaper to report all the details of contested evidence presented during such proceedings, and the omission of some evidence does not in itself present a breach of the Code.

Principle 5

The complainant claimed that publication of some factual personal information amounted to invasion of his privacy and home life. The publication of the information objected to by the complainant, where this was either part of the court or tribunal proceedings or contained in statements made during such proceedings, does not breach the Code of Practice.

Principle 7

The complainant maintained that the omission of some rebuttal evidence was a breach of the requirement for court reports to be fair and accurate and that, in choosing to ignore some evidence, the newspaper distorted the court report. It is not necessary for a newspaper to report all of the details of contested evidence presented in court, and the omission of some rebuttal evidence is not a breach of the Code.

Principle 8

The complainant provided no evidence that anything in the report amounted to an incitement to hatred as envisaged by this Principle.

11 June 2008

The complainant appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland