A Man and the Irish Examiner

Complaint

A man complained that articles published in the Irish Examiner about a court case involving an alleged assault, and in which he gave evidence, were in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 4 (Respect for Rights), 5 (Privacy), 7 (Court Reporting) and 9 (Children) of the Code of Practice. He further complained that the newspaper’s coverage of the case was influenced by an undeclared potential conflict of interest on its part arising from an unrelated matter, which he set out in his complaint.

The complainant’s basic contention was that the court report, by virtue of what he claimed was a biased selection of some evidence (including the publication of evidence he believed was extraneous matter), the omission of other evidence he considered to be significant, and the presentation of the articles, including the headline and photographs, were cumulatively so unfair as to present an inaccurate version of events to the reader.

The newspaper responded that the court case was one in which the complainant and the defendant were centrally involved, and that its coverage of the case, both in its component parts and its totality, was fair and accurate, was supported by its reporter’s shorthand note, a transcript of which it supplied, and did not breach any of the Principles of the Code of Practice. Insofar as the complaint related to the headline on the front page article, the newspaper maintained that this was fair comment as provided for in law and in the Code of Practice.

Decision

The court case at the centre of this complaint originated in exchanges involving the defendant, the complainant himself, and the complainant’s employees, as a result of which the Gardai were called and criminal charges were brought against the defendant. The complainant was a witness in the case.

Newspapers have no control over decisions to bring charges, the admissibility of evidence, or the choice of witnesses in any court case. Different newspapers take different editorial decisions about what they will and will not report from the law courts, and these decisions may well invite comment and criticism on grounds of insensitivity, taste or for other reasons.

There is no requirement on a newspaper to report all the details of evidence presented in court proceedings, or to allocate column inches to testimony on any basis other than editorial judgement about the significance, relevance, and newsworthiness of what it reports, subject to the overriding requirements of fairness and accuracy. The omission or inclusion of any evidence, including allegations made in evidence which some participants may regard as unfounded and unfair, does not in itself present a breach of the Code of Practice.

Overall, the articles convey accurately a substantial amount of essential information about the trial, its origin and its outcome. The complainant’s own analysis of the selection of evidence made, and his opinion about the significance of the inclusions and omissions, are not sufficient evidence that the newspaper did not strive for truth and accuracy, or that it did not strive to ensure the court report was fair. The newspaper’s decision to feature, as part of its overall coverage, certain evidence indicating the existence of a background of disharmony between the accused and the complainant represents a reasonable application of editorial discretion in relation to the reporting of court cases. In the circumstances, the reporting of the court case did not breach Principle 1 or Principle 7 of the Code of Practice.

The complainant specifically argued under Principle 1.2 that a reference in the articles to him withdrawing a complaint against the defendant was inaccurate, since what he did was to indicate that he did not want to give evidence. While the Ombudsman accepts that the complainant had notified the Gardai only that he did not wish to give evidence, this decision by the complainant resulted directly in the withdrawal of his complaint by the Gardai. The complainant is reported - and does not contest this part of the article - as stating in court: “I regret withdrawing it in the light of what was said today”. The statement by the newspaper that the complainant withdrew his complaint is therefore not a significant inaccuracy and for that reason is not a breach of Principle 1.2.

The Press Ombudsman does not accept the complainant’s view that he (i.e. the Press Ombudsman) should interpret certain elements of the Code of Practice as curtailing a newspaper’s right to report accurately and fairly anything that is given in evidence in a court of law because such reports might gravely offend or distress participants or some readers, or would, if reported other than from a court, amount to a breach of their privacy. For this reason, the complainant’s complaints under Principle 2.1, insofar as they relate to the publication and presentation of damaging allegations about him made in court by the defendant, together with his complaints under Principles 4, 5 and 9, are not upheld.

The complainant’s opinion that the editor’s judgement was inappropriately influenced by an undeclared potential conflict of interest involving an unrelated matter was vigorously contested by the newspaper. The weight of evidence on this matter is insufficient to support a decision that the editor’s best judgment had been inappropriately influenced by any undisclosed interest under Principle 2.2.

The complainant argued that the headline to one of the articles was inaccurate, misleading and distorting, in breach of Principle 1, failed to distinguish between fact and comment, in breach of Principle 2, and was not fair, in breach of Principle 7. It created, he said, an impression that this was a family squabble or “farce” that should never have been before the court, and portrayed him as someone who was centrally involved in the bringing of a farce to court. The newspaper defended its headline on the grounds that the facts on which the comment was based were matters that occurred in the court on the day, and that on that basis, a commentator could (and in this case did) honestly hold such an opinion. In the circumstances, the newspaper argued that it was fair comment, a principle well understood in law.

There is insufficient evidence in the court report itself to support the complainant’s contention that the comment complained of is either unfair or inaccurate in the context of Principle 1 or Principle 7. However, the newspaper’s decision to present its comment as an integral part of, and an introduction to, an otherwise factual news report, inadequately distinguishes it from fact and, as such, represents a breach of the requirement of Principle 2 that comment and fact should be distinguished. On the other hand, this does not support the complainant’s further contention that the headline could reasonably be interpreted as portraying him as someone who was centrally involved in the bringing of a “farce” to court.

Finally, the complainant argued that the Irish Examiner’s handling of his complaint, particularly alleged delays on the part of the newspaper in dealing with his complaint, contravened the preamble to the Code of Practice and went against the spirit of the Code. There is no evidence that the Preamble to the Code of Practice, which contains no reference to the manner in which newspapers should deal with complaints, was breached in this regard.

1 August 2008

The complainant appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland