Mr Tom Mooney and the People Newspaper Group

The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint made by the editor of the Echo Newspaper Group, Mr Tom Mooney, that articles published on 26 March 2013 in the Wexford People, the New Ross Standard, the Enniscorthy Guardian and the Gorey Guardian (all published by The People Newspapers Limited)   were in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy)  and 7 (Court Reporting) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

The articles – which were effectively identical in all the titles concerned – reported on a court hearing on 20 March 2013 at which the court noted an apology on behalf of  the Wexford Echo Group in  respect of an issue raised on behalf of a defendant in an earlier criminal trial,  and ordered the two Echo newspapers to pay €1,000 each to  a local charity.  

The headline of each of the newspaper articles under complaint read “Circuit Court hands down fines of €2,000,” and “Echo newspapers  in contempt of court”.   Each of the articles stated that the Enniscorthy and Wexford Echo newspapers had each been fined €1,000 for contempt of court, and that the judge had “instructed” Mr Mooney to attend court. Mr Mooney complained that these statements were inaccurate.

The People Newspaper Limited maintained that their articles were a fair and accurate report of the court proceedings.  

There was no evidence that the Echo newspapers had been convicted of contempt of court, which is a serious criminal offence, or that they had been fined by the court after having been convicted of such an offence.   There was also no evidence that Mr Mooney had been instructed by the judge to attend court.  In the circumstances, the statements complained about were significantly inaccurate and therefore in breach of Principle 1 and Principle 7 of the Code.

The Press Ombudsman decided not to uphold a complaint under Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) because there was no evidence to support the complaint under this Principle.  

Mr Mooney further complained that The People Newspaper Limited had failed to avail of the opportunity, in  the  article  under complaint, to fairly and accurately  clarify the circumstances of  his non-attendance at court on a previous occasion, which was reported upon in an article published on 27 November 2012.      As this would require the Press Ombudsman to make a decision about the contents of an article that had not been the subject of a formal complaint within the time limit specified by the procedures of his Office, this element of the complaint could not be considered by him.

 

 16 August 2013