Foley and the Evening Herald

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint made on behalf of Mr Martin Foley by his solicitor under Principle 2.2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals about an article in the Evening Herald on 8 December 2009. A number of other complaints about the article were not upheld.

The Evening Herald reported, among other matters, that Mr Foley had been arrested, detained by armed detectives, handed over to members of the Special Detective Unit for questioning, and had his car searched. Mr Foley’s solicitor maintained that these were unconfirmed reports reported as if they were fact. The newspaper maintained that all the statements in the article were correct.

The reports cited above, unlike others complained of which were attributed to the newspaper’s “sources”, were unconfirmed but were reported as fact. This was a breach of Principle 2.2 of the Code of Practice, which states that comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact, and the complaint about these reports under Principle 2.2 is therefore upheld.
A number of other complaints about the article were not upheld.

Mr Foley’s solicitor also complained under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) that the article contained seven false statements about his client, including the reports itemised above. The newspaper said that it stood over its story.

Both parties were invited to submit further observations or information to support their respective – and diametrically contradictory – statements about the accuracy of the reports. The complainant’s solicitor submitted a letter that repeated and amplified the original complaints but did not supply any additional information to support the assertion that the statements were inaccurate. The newspaper repeated its assertion that all the statements in the article were correct, but did not provide any further information to support this assertion. In these circumstances, no decision can be made on the accuracy or otherwise of the seven statements complained of.

Mr Foley’s solicitor also complained that as the article included material relating to the then crime correspondent of the Sunday World, it should have included, in line with the provisions of Principle 2.3 of the Code of Practice relating to significant potential conflicts of interest, a statement that the Evening Herald and the Sunday World are owned by the same company. The non-publication, as part of this article, of the widely known common ownership of the two newspapers does not represent a breach of the Code of Practice.

He also complained that the article breached Principle 4 (Respect for Rights), but as there was insufficient evidence to support this complaint, this complaint is not upheld.

He also complained under Principle 5 (Privacy). Mr Foley, as a person who has “sought or obtained publicity for his activities”, can be regarded as a public person as defined in Principle 5.4 of the Code of Practice. In these circumstances, the publication of the article concerned can be justified under the public interest provision of Principle 5.4 and the complaint about the article under this Principle is therefore not upheld.
 

23 March 2010

Both the Evening Herald and Mr Foley appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.