A Woman and The Irish Times

Complaint

A woman complained through her solicitors that two articles published in The Irish Times which included material about her financial affairs were in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. She complained in particular that publication of the material in question was not in the public interest and therefore breached her constitutional right to privacy.

The newspaper contended that the complainant was a public person insofar as aspects of her financial affairs had been dealt with in a public tribunal, and that its reports were accurate and did not breach the Principles of the Code of Practice cited by the complainant’s solicitors. It stated that the publication of material about the complainant’s financial affairs was in the public interest, and, since the subject matter of the articles was a matter of considerable public concern, it had not breached the complainant’s right to privacy. Although not agreeing with the complainant’s side of the story, the newspaper accepted that she was entitled to have her argument presented to its readers and offered to consider the publication of a letter by her. The offer was turned down by the complainant.

Decision

The complainant’s solicitors submitted a letter from her building society in relation to some of the statements in the articles that she alleged were inaccurate. However, they refused to allow this letter to be shown to the newspaper for its consideration. In these circumstances, in the interest of fair procedures, and in the absence of any admissible evidence from either side relating to the veracity of the statements complained of, the Press Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on the truth or accuracy of the statements in question under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

There was no evidence that the newspaper did not strive for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of the information contained in the articles. Neither was there evidence that it published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations. In relation to the requirement under Principle 4 of the Code that publications should take reasonable care in checking facts before publication, the first article stated that the complainant could not be reached for comment and the second stated that attempts to contact her for comment were unsuccessful. The complaints under Principle 3 and Principle 4 are therefore not upheld.

To the extent that the complainant’s financial arrangements had come under scrutiny at a public tribunal, she was a public person. The publication of material about some aspects of her financial affairs directly related to the public scrutiny of those financial arrangements falls within the general provisions of the Preamble to the Code of Practice relating to the public interest, and is protected by Principle 5, which states that the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or in the public interest. The articles therefore do not involve a breach of Principle 5 of the Code.

25 September 2009

The complainant appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.