Leonard and the Connaught Telegraph

Complaint

Mr James Leonard complained that an article published in the Connaught Telegraph of 22 July 2008 about a local planning issue was in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3 (Fairness and Honesty), 4 (Respect for Rights) and possibly 8 (Incitement to Hatred) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals.

Mr Leonard said that he believed that the article had failed to take account of all the documentation on the public record about a planning issue in which he was involved. He believed that the article incorrectly implied that he was responsible for a planning appeal that had resulted in a decision by An Bord Pleanála that a certain local quarry was an unauthorised development, and that this had been a personal attack on his integrity and standing in the community. He complained that the use of words in the article such as ‘maintained’, ‘said’ and ‘added’ to introduce quotations from an appeal he had made to An Bord Pleanála gave the misleading impression that he had been interviewed by the newspaper. He also complained that a letter of complaint about the article which he sent to the editor of the newspaper was published without his permission in the ‘Letters to the Editor’ page of the newspaper.

The newspaper said that it could not find a basis for any of Mr Leonard’s complaints, nor could it establish where any inaccuracies had occurred in the article. However, in an effort to resolve the complaint, and as the subject matter of the article was a complex planning issue, it offered to publish a letter from Mr. Leonard to allow him clarify his position in relation to the issues which he disputed in the original article.

It also offered to publish a clarification in relation to the inadvertent publication of Mr Leonard’s original letter of complaint, accepting that the letter was not meant for publication and apologising for any offence or embarrassment caused as a result of its publication. It also offered to write a private letter of apology to Mr Leonard.

The complainant deemed the newspaper’s response unsatisfactory, and requested that the newspaper publish a clarification of what he claimed were inaccuracies in the original article.

Decision

The article under complaint related to an exceptionally complicated planning matter involving the complainant, the owner of a quarry, Mayo County Council, An Bord Pleanála, a Bord Pleanála inspector’s report, and various provisions of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations.

The headline and lead paragraphs in the article accurately reported that a local quarry had been deemed an ‘unauthorised’ development by An Bord Pleanála, and the Board’s view that it would therefore be inappropriate for it to grant permission for the retention of certain features of the quarry concerned in such circumstances.

The owner of the quarry had previously been given permission by Mayo County Council to retain certain aspects of the quarrying operations subject to conditions, and had appealed to An Bord Pleanála against the imposition of these conditions. The complainant had appealed to An Bord Pleanála against the original grant of permission by the Council to retain these features of the quarry. An Bord Pleanála determined, and the newspaper reported, that as the quarry commenced operation after 1 October l964 it did not benefit from any planning exemptions based on having commenced operation prior to October l964. The Board also considered that the quarrying activity on site constituted unauthorised development and that it would be inappropriate for the Board to grant permission for retention of the processing equipment as applied for since to do so would facilitate the continuation of unauthorised development on the site.

The newspaper reported, in the paragraph immediately following a reference to the complainant’s appeal, that there was also another appeal, but without specifying the origin of the second appeal. The complainant maintained that this gave the impression that he had been the originator of the second appeal, even though it had in fact been made by the owner of the quarry.

The reference to the second appeal in the article, however, was taken verbatim from a paragraph about both appeals contained in a report prepared by a planning inspector for An Bord Pleanála. This paragraph did not identify the owner of the quarry as the originator of the second appeal. Insofar as this may have created an ambiguity which, in the opinion of the complainant, affected his integrity and standing in the community, such ambiguity was caused by the wording of the report itself, which was a document on the public record accurately reported by the newspaper.

Mr Leonard asserted that the decision of An Bord Pleanála to deem the quarry an unauthorised development was the result of the appeal by the owner of the quarry (which was subsequently withdrawn) rather than as the result of any appeal made by him, and that this should have been stated by the newspaper. The Board’s decision did not refer to either appeal as the specific reason for its decision, and the newspaper was not required to draw such a conclusion as part of its coverage of the planning issue generally.

The context for the newspaper’s form of words in introducing quotations from Mr. Leonard, about which he also complained, made it very clear that the words in question were taken from documents submitted on behalf of Mr. Leonard as part of his appeal. The complainant did not question their accuracy.

Given the complex nature of the subject matter of the article under complaint, and taking into consideration all of the matters raised by the complainant, and the newspaper’s offer to give the complainant an adequate opportunity to clarify his personal view on all of the matters that he raised, the newspaper’s offer was a proportionate and adequate response to the complaint under Principles 1 and 2 of the Code of Practice.

There was no evidence to support Mr Leonard’s complaints under Principles 3, 4 and 8 of the Code of Practice.

While the publication of Mr Leonard’s original letter of complaint by the newspaper was regrettable, it was an inadvertent error on the part of the newspaper, and again the newspaper’s offer to publish a clarification and to issue a private letter of apology to Mr Leonard for the error was sufficient remedial action on its part. In the circumstances, no further action is required under the Code of Practice.

As this very complex matter may come before the planning authorities again in the future, it is recommended that the newspaper should take Mr. Leonard’s original letter of complaint into consideration in relation to any future coverage of the issues concerned. It is also recommended that the newspaper should regard its offer to publish a letter from Mr Leonard as remaining open for a reasonable period.

16 January 2009

Mr Leonard appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.