Meegan and the Irish Mail On Sunday

The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint by Mr Michael Meegan that an article in the Irish Mail on Sunday on 3 July 2011 about him and his involvement with a charity was in breach of a number of Principles of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

Mr Meegan complained that the article concerned, headlined “Why is this sordid charity still going?” was in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3 (Fairness and Honesty), 4 (Respect for Rights), 5 Privacy and 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice. He complained that the newspaper had withheld facts and information in their possession that would discredit the story, and that the article was unfair, had damaged his good name, invaded his privacy and had incited hatred or caused grave offence against him on grounds of sexual orientation.

The newspaper defended its publication of the article on the grounds that all the information it contained was, if reported as fact, factually accurate. It stated that it had included in the article a rejection by Mr Meegan of allegations against him that had featured in a court case following the publication of an article about him in 2010, and that it had afforded him the opportunity to answer a substantial number of questions about himself and the charity concerned in advance of publication of the article under complaint, but that he had declined to comment.

While the deliberate omission of verifiable and significant information may, depending on the evidence and the context, expose an article to a complaint that it is misleading or distorted, the evidence that this has occurred must be substantial and persuasive. There was, however, insufficient evidence in this case that the omission of any material by the newspaper would support a reasonable conclusion that the article was distorted or misleading in breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

The Press Ombudsman decided that there was insufficient evidence that any of the statements in the article itself were significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted, as would be required to establish a breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
He also decided that there was insufficient evidence to support the complaint that the article breached Principles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Code of Practice.

5 December 2011

The Complainant appealed the Decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.