Mr Alan Dignam and the Evening Herald

The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint by Mr Alan Dignam that three articles in the Evening Herald about a case in the District Court in which he was one of two defendants and in which he was convicted of a number of offences were in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 3 (Fairness and Honesty), 4 (Respect for Rights) and 7 (Court Reporting) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

Mr Dignam complained that the newspaper’s coverage of the court case was extremely biased, unbalanced, disproportionate and unfair to him.  He also complained about a photograph of him that was published because it was much larger than that of a photograph of his co-accused.     

Consideration of Mr Dignam’s complaint was postponed by the Office of the Press Ombudsman under the procedures of the Office because the matter was still at hearing.  Immediately following a later, successful appeal to the Circuit Court the complainant exercised his right to re-activate the complaint.  At that stage, Mr Dignam further complained that the successful outcome of his appeal had not been reported by the newspaper.

The newspaper replied that it had accurately reported the District Court case involving the complainant, and the statements about him in the articles about which he complained were statements made by an assault victim  during the  court case. It said that a description of  the victim in one of the articles’ headlines as a garda was clarified by the information in the opening paragraph of that article that he was a retired garda.   In relation to the complaint about the size of the  photograph of the complainant that was published, the newspaper said that the layout and design of the  paper was at their discretion, and that a picture of his co-accused was also used.  Finally, the newspaper said that it had, on receipt of information that the complainant had successfully appealed the District Court’s decision, obtained a record of the outcome of the appeal and published same.

It is clear that the statements complained of by  Mr Dignam were given in evidence in an open court.  Although they were offensive to the complainant, they were accurately and adequately attributed to a witness in the case. Although evidence given in a court case may frequently be considered as misleading by a complainant, as long as it is reported and attributed accurately it does not present a breach of  Principle 1 of the Code.

There was no evidence that the  material published, including the photograph complained of, were obtained by misrepresentation, subterfuge or harassment, as is required to support a complaint under Principle 3.   

Again, it is hardly surprising that a complainant may consider that allegations made against him in open court – particularly when these allegations were not upheld on appeal – were based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations. However, as long as allegations are presented as such in a report which complies with Principle 7 of the Code of Practice, and not as facts, neither the newspaper nor, in this instance, the Press Ombudsman, is free to conclude from the complainant’s subsequent acquittal that the material published was based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, as would be required to support a complaint under Principle 4

Nor – however unwelcome this may be to the complainant – does a subsequent acquittal in the Circuit Court on appeal prove that the accurate reporting of proceedings in a lower court in which he was convicted was a breach of Principle 7 because in his view this was unfair. To interpret Principle 7 in this light would make all court reporting hazardous in the extreme and would involve an unwarranted interference with the freedom of the press.

In the view of the Press Ombudsman, it would be unreasonable to expect a publication to be aware of the date of every appeal to the Circuit Court against a District Court conviction which it had previously reported, or to put the onus on an appellant to notify a newspaper about any such appeal.  In these circumstances, the  newspaper’s decision to independently verify the outcome of the appeal and publish it, shortly after it had been made aware of it,  was appropriate.    

In the light of the above, the Press Ombudsman found that the articles complained of did not breach any of the Principles of the Code of Practice cited by him

The complainant also raised a number of matters relating to the handling of the original Garda investigation and court hearing, which he said resulted in his victimization. These matters  were not within the remit of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

15 March 2013