Mr Patrick McKillen and The Irish Times

The Press Ombudsman has decided that The Irish Times offered to take sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint by Mr Patrick McKillen, made through his solicitors, that an article published in The Irish Times on 23 December 2013 was in breach of Principle  2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice.   A complaint that the article breached Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code was not upheld.

The article reported on a meeting of the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee which took place the previous week, at which the Chairman and CEO of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) gave evidence.  The article reported on a statement made at the meeting by a NAMA official that NAMA was the subject of a “carefully orchestrated operation” intended to damage NAMA and thereby undermine the financial interests of the State.   The article went on to state that the two men “certainly seem to believe property developer Paddy McKillen is somewhere in the mix”.    

Mr McKillen’s solicitors complained that there was no justification for stating that the Chairman and CEO of NAMA believed that Mr McKillen was involved in a campaign to undermine NAMA, since neither of the individuals had named their client in their evidence to the Oireachtas Committee.  

The newspaper responded that its article did not state that Mr McKillen was part of the alleged operation, but that the writer offered his opinion that NAMA “seem to believe” he was “somewhere in the mix”.   The newspaper said the writer based this opinion on other evidence by NAMA’s officials to the Committee that Mr McKillen had accessed confidential information and that he had a history of using it inappropriately.  It invited Mr McKillen or his representative to submit a letter or article for publication, or to be interviewed by the newspaper, such interview to form the basis of an article.  The offer was turned down by Mr McKillen.

It was clear that the Public Accounts Committee did not establish the identity of the individual or individuals who, NAMA believed,  may have been behind the orchestrated operation it referred to in its evidence, and that the NAMA officials giving evidence did not, and were not asked to, reveal names.   While the article included its author’s opinion, based on the other evidence cited above, that the executives involved  seemed to believe that Mr McKillen  was “in the mix”, it is equally clear that the newspaper did not state, as a fact or otherwise, that Mr McKillen was behind the “carefully orchestrated operation” referred to  by the executives. 
   
The Press Ombudsman decided that the offer made by the newspaper to publish a right of reply from Mr McKillen or his representative was, in all of the circumstances, an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve the complaint made under Principle 2 of the Code.  

There was insufficient evidence to uphold a complaint under Principle 4 that the material concerned had been published knowingly  - as this Principle requires - based on malicious misrepresentations or unfounded accusations, or that,  in making its inquiries, the newspaper had not taken reasonable care in checking facts  before publication

29 April 2014

The complainant appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.