Dumbrell and the Evening Herald

The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Evening Herald made an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint made on behalf of Mr Thomas Dumbrell about an article published in the Evening Herald on l6 February, which he complained breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals.

The article described how Mr Dumbrell incurred wounds after an explosion at his home. Mr Dumbrell complained, through his solicitors, that the incident did not occur as it was described in the article. The newspaper said that while the description of the incident was not attributed to a source, two previous articles about the matter had attributed the incident to the newspaper’s sources, and had not been the subject of any complaint. The newspaper offered to clarify the matter and said that it would deal with such a clarification if the complainant or his solicitor would let it know in what respects its description of the incident differed from what the complainant says had happened. The complainant did not take up the newspaper’s offer.

Principle 1.3 of the Code of Practice states “When appropriate, a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published promptly and with due prominence”. In these circumstances, the newspaper’s offer to publish a clarification was an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve this complaint.

A further complaint that the use of the word ‘Scarface’ in the headline and in the body of the article was unkind and thoughtless was understandable, but as the complainant did not indicate any particular Principle of the Code of Practice relevant to this part of his complaint, it could not be considered under the Code.

18 August 2010

Mr Dumbrell appealed the Decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.