Mr Kieran Coughlan and the Irish Mail On Sunday

The Press Ombudsman has decided that an article published in the Irish Mail on Sunday was in breach of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines because it included a statement about the complainant, the Clerk of Dáil Éireann, Mr Kieran Coughlan, that was, on the balance of the evidence, significantly inaccurate, and because the newspaper’s offer of redress did not, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, meet the requirements of the Code in this case.

In its editorial of 23  December, the newspaper asserted that the Oireachtas Service, headed by Mr  Coughlan, was “STILL handing out expenses [to TDs and Senators] when it should not rightfully have done so.”

The evidence for this assertion was inadequate, and more than counterbalanced by the evidence presented by the complainant that he had fulfilled all the statutory requirements imposed on him by the relevant legislation. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman’s view is that the appropriate redress under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) would have been an unqualified apology and retraction or correction.   The redress offered by the publication failed to meet these criteria. The complaint under Principle 1 is therefore upheld.

The newspaper maintained that the article was justified because its assertion represented an honestly-held opinion and legitimate comment on the performance of a senior public servant.  However, this opinion was reported as a fact, and was therefore also in breach of Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment). While Principle 2 unambiguously protects the right of publications to advocate strongly their own views, it would be illogical, and hardly contemplated by the Code, if this vital protection were to be extended to comment that is in breach of the Code because it has been reported as fact. The complaint under Principle 2 is therefore also upheld.

The complainant also maintained that the article was in breach of Principle 4 (Respect for Rights).  There was no evidence that the publication had knowingly published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, which would be a breach of this Principle. Nonetheless, there was substantial evidence that the publication had not taken reasonable care in checking facts before publication, as is also mandated by this Principle. Although the complainant said that the publication could have contacted his office before writing the article, and that his office would have been glad to explain the workings of the expenses and allowances regime, there was no evidence that it had done so, and insufficient evidence that it had taken reasonable care, before publication, in checking the facts contained in the relevant statutory provisions governing the payment of expenses and allowances. The complaint under Principle 4 is therefore also upheld.

There was insufficient evidence to support a complaint that the article concerned was also in breach of Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty).

 11 July 2013