Dwyer Family and News of the World

Complaint

A complaint was received from a representative of the Dwyer family regarding an article published in the News of the World on 3 May 2009 reporting on events associated with the death of their son, Michael, in Bolivia. They complained that a story in the article, stating that a certain group of men had formed a guard of honour at the late Mr Dwyer’s grave in Tipperary some hours after he was buried, was untrue in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. The family believed that the incident reported in the article did not take place.

In a lengthy response to the complainants’ representative the newspaper stated that, as noted in the report, the story was based on an eyewitness account of the incident, and that this was from a source who wished for professional reasons to remain anonymous. The newspaper also noted that the story included corroboration from Garda sources. It further stated that it had, in advance of publishing the story, contacted a representative of the Dwyer family so that they could comment on it, and the article included a number of comments by the representative.

Decision

This complaint relates to the reporting of an incident which the family strongly believed did not take place but which the newspaper attributed to an eye witness account, corroborated by Garda sources. It is perennially difficult to prove a negative. However, given the fact that the newspaper obtained Garda corroboration for the story, and that it contacted the family’s representative in advance of its publication, there is no evidence to suggest that the newspaper did not strive for truth and accuracy in reporting the story, in accordance with Principle 1. The story concerned was adequately attributed and sourced, and was therefore not in breach of Principle 2. There was no evidence that the newspaper did not strive for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of the information complained about, or that the information
published was matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, in breach of Principles 3 and 4.

The report was obviously unwelcome to the family at a time of personal grief and shock and the headline conflicted with the family’s strong belief that the deceased had no neo-Nazi associations. However, the complaint under Principle 5 has to be considered in the context of the legitimate public interest of the subject matter of the article, given the national and international significance of the events concerned. In these circumstances, the article did not, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, breach Principle 5 of the Code of Practice.

13 August 2009

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