Mr Gerry Adams TD and the Irish Independent

The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold  a complaint by Mr Gerry Adams TD that an article published in the Irish Independent on 14 May 2014 was in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

Mr Adams complained, through his solicitors,  that  a statement in the article that “Police ‘tipped off’ Sinn Fein leader about case before trial” was inaccurate, in breach of  Principles 1 and 2 of the Code,  because it  meant that he had engaged in or acquiesced in inappropriate conduct in relation to giving evidence at the trial of his brother, which was untrue.  His solicitors also complained about a statement in the article that if the allegation were to be upheld, it could form part of the basis of his brother’s appeal against his conviction.  
The newspaper rejected these assertions, and said that it was clear from the opening paragraphs of the article that the statement complained about was an allegation being investigated by the Police Ombudsman.  It also said that the article in no way suggested that the allegation reported in the article would inevitably be found to be proven, or that any appeal by the complainant’s brother would inevitably be successful, even if the allegations had a basis in fact.

The Press Ombudsman decided that the contents of the article, not least the use of quotation marks in the headline, and its reference to an allegation in the second paragraph, underlined the fact that the statement complained about related to unconfirmed reports, and was therefore not in breach of either of the Principles cited.   

 Mr Adams’s solicitors also complained under Principle 4 of the Code that he had not been given an appropriate or timely opportunity to reply to the allegations concerned prior to publication, and that the newspaper was obliged to give him such an opportunity as part of its obligation under Principle 4 of the Code to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.

The newspaper said that it had sought a comment from Mr Adams before publication but that it was received too late for inclusion in the print edition of the article, and that the online edition of the article had been immediately amended.  Under these circumstances the Press Ombudsman decided that no breach of Principle 4 had taken place.

20 August 2014