Mr James Creane and the Bray People
The Bray People published an article on 20 August 2014 under the headline “TV3 rapped for ‘Death in Bray’ programme”. The subject of the article was a decision by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) to partially uphold a complaint about a TV3 programme which had featured the deaths of Shane Clancy and Sebastian Creane in 2009. Shane Clancy killed Sebastian Creane and injured others before taking his own life. The complaint to the BAI had been made by Ms Leonie Fennell, the mother of Shane Clancy.
Mr James Creane, the father of Sebastian Creane, complained to the Bray People saying that he was “appalled at the insensitive, damaging and biased nature” of the article. He complained that the article was “incredulously based on the hear-say of the mother of (his) son’s murderer”. He said that a statement in the article attributed to Shane Clancy’s mother that “a journal attributed to her son did not exist” was untrue. He also complained about the publication of a photograph of his son which, he said, caused great distress to him and his family. The newspaper apologised for any distress caused by the article, and said Mr Creane could have an opportunity to say why he disagreed with the assertions he complained about in a subsequent edition of the newspaper.
Mr Creane turned down the newspaper’s offer and complained to the editor of the Bray People that Principle 1.1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 5.3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines had been breached. The editor replied repeating that the article had relied on the findings of the BAI and that the existence or otherwise of a “journal” was part of the decision of the BAI and the Bray People had simply reported on the BAI’s findings. In regard to the photograph of Sebastian Creane used to illustrate the article the editor said that it had been taken from the TV3 programme and had been used on a previous occasion, so he did not think it was insensitive to re-use it.
At this point the complaint entered the conciliation process of the Press Ombudsman’s Office. Mr Creane argued that the newspaper should have checked the accuracy of the BAI findings in relation to the existence or otherwise of a “journal” before publishing them. He also said that his son’s photograph was not used in the TV programme and asked where the newspaper had sourced it.
The editor reiterated that the Bray People had simply reported the findings of the BAI. In regard to the photograph, the editor offered to publish an apology to the Creane family for any distress caused by its publication. He said he had assumed his newspaper had got the photograph from TV3 but that he could not now be sure, and that it had been published previously, five months earlier, in the Bray People. He undertook not to publish it again.
Through the Office’s conciliation process, Mr Creane accepted publication of an apology as a resolution to that part of his complaint relating to the distress caused by the publication of the photograph. As two outstanding matters in Mr Creane’s complaint could not be resolved by conciliation these parts of his complaint were forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.
Mr Creane’s complaint about the accuracy of the statement in the article about the existence of a “journal” was made under Principle 1.1 of the Code of Practice, which states:
1.1 In reporting news and information newspapers and magazines shall strive at all times for truth and accuracy.
The one reference in the article in the Bray People to a “journal” is as follows:
She (Ms Leonie Fennell, the mother of Shane Clancy) added that a journal attributed to her son did not exist.
Mr Creane in his complaint suggested that the Bray People should have checked the accuracy of Ms Fennell’s statement as reported by the BAI. But the function of a newspaper in reporting a regulatory body’s findings is to give a truthful account of those findings, it is not to determine if those findings are accurate.
The only relevant consideration is whether or not the Bray People reported the BAI findings accurately. The Bray People reported that Shane Clancy’s mother had said that a journal attributed to her son did not exist.
The Summary of Complaint section of the BAI Compliance Committee decision stated:
The complainant (Ms Fennell) states that she was horrified to hear a Professor of Psychiatry, included in this programme, maintain that her son had left a journal that the complainant had not seen. The complainant states that this turned out not to be true and that viewers were misled by the references in the programme to this journal.
The BAI reference to a “journal” in this section of its report is ambiguous, because it has a number of possible meanings, including that Ms Fennell stated that it turned out not to be true that her son had left a journal, that she stated that she had not seen the journal or both.
One of the options available to the Press Ombudsman in his consideration of a complaint is that he has insufficient evidence available to him to make a decision. Given the differing possible interpretations of the BAI wording I cannot with absolute certainty ascertain the exact meaning of the relevant section contained in the BAI Summary of Complaint. For this reason I am unable to determine, under Principle 1.1 of the Code of Practice, the accuracy or otherwise of the statement published by the newspaper.
In regard to the second part of Mr Creane’s complaint I find that while the Bray People was unable to indicate where they sourced the photograph of Sebastian Creane, and it is understandable that this caused upset to the Creane family, the newspaper’s inability to provide this information was not, in itself, a breach of Principle 5.3 of the Code of Practice. Newspapers undoubtedly come across many photographs and while in an ideal world it would be useful to have them all catalogued by date and source, in reality this is not always possible.
9 March 2015
The complainant appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland.