Mr John Kelly and the Irish Independent

The Press Ombudsman decided not to uphold a complaint by Mr John Kelly that an article in the Irish Independent on 12 December 2012 entitled “CAB gets clearance to seize family homes of gangsters” 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 for Newspapers and Magazines.

Mr Kelly complained that the headline to the article inferred that he was a gangster, which he said he was not. He also complained about the reliance by the newspaper on anonymous sources, the newspaper’s reference to a previous trial in which he was involved, and the publication of a photograph of him in handcuffs taken on the occasion of an earlier trial. 

The newspaper responded that the specific references to the complainant in the article were based directly on evidence given in the High Court, endorsed by the Supreme Court, that properties he had bought had been financed by the proceeds of crime. It further noted that the Supreme Court judgment in the case, which was the subject of the report complained of, stated categorically that the complainant had lived for 22 years in property which was acquired by the proceeds of crime.

In these circumstances, and despite other claimed inaccuracies in the article which were not, in any event, significant, it is not possible to conclude that the newspaper’s references to the complainant, who accepted that he had been involved in criminal activity while insisting that he was not a ‘gangster’, were unreasonable, unsupported by sufficient evidence, or otherwise in breach of any of the Principles cited. Nor, in the circumstances, was the use of an historic archive photograph of the complainant a breach of the Code, although it is noted that current practice by the Courts Service very properly makes the photographing of unconvicted persons in handcuffs very difficult and, in many cases, impossible.

A complaint on behalf of the complainant’s estranged wife and children was not considered as there was no evidence that their permission for this complaint had been obtained.

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