Ms Catherine Garvey and the Clare Champion

The Clare Champion published an article giving a short account of a burglary that had taken place in a village in Co. Clare.  The article did not give the identity of those robbed or an address, but reported on the sum of money that had been stolen.  

Catherine Garvey, on behalf of her sister and her brother-in-law (the couple whose house had been burgled), complained to the Press Ombudsman that the report breached Principle 5 – Privacy of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.  She argued that the amount stolen should not have been reported and that it would have been sufficient to report that “a substantial amount of cash” or “an amount of cash” had been stolen.  She stated that she felt the report was a “total infringement” of the privacy of her sister and brother-in-law.

In its initial response to the complainant The Clare Champion defended its publication by saying that the “matter was newsworthy” and that the details had been made available to them by the Gardaí.  The paper further stated that they had not given the precise address of the couple who had been burgled.

The complainant in response to this latter point argued that the village in Co Clare where the burglary had taken place “is a very small rural place where everybody knows everybody”, so not disclosing the identity of the victims of the burglary was meaningless.

In its defence The Clare Champion dismissed the proposition that to have referred to the amount stolen as “substantial” would have been sufficient. This, the paper claimed,   “put the public on notice of the risk of having very large sums of money in their home, even in a safe or strong box.”

As a successful conciliation between the two parties was not possible the complaint was referred to the Press Ombudsman for consideration.

In assessing this complaint the most relevant part of the code is Section 5.2 where it is stated Readers are entitled to have news and comment presented with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals.  However the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or in the public interest. In addition Section 5.3 needs to be taken into account. Sympathy and discretion must be shown at all times in seeking information in situations of personal grief or shock.  In publishing such information, the feelings of grieving families should be taken into account.  This should not be interpreted as restricting the right to report judicial proceedings.

The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold the complaint.  When newspapers report robberies of cash it is generally the norm, where it is known, to state the amount of cash stolen.  If the amount of cash stolen is not given the reader could easily misinterpret the gravity of the crime.  For example if the amount stolen had been simply described as “substantial” a reader could have interpreted this to mean a small fraction of the amount actually stolen. The Press Ombudsman is also persuaded by the argument put forward by The Clare Champion that it was necessary to give the amount stolen in order that the report might act as a deterrent to other people who may have large sums of money in their houses.  There can be no doubting that the victims of the crime would have preferred if the actual sum stolen had not been reported.  This reporting has without question added to their distress and suffering.  However, in the view of the Press Ombudsman there was no breach of Principle 5.2. The report was in the public interest.

In regard to Principle 5.3 there are requirements for sympathy and discretion towards people in shock. There can be little doubt but that the couple who had been burgled were likely to be in shock as a result of the burglary and the loss of their life savings.  The Clare Champion by not naming the victims or publishing their address was trying to show discretion towards the victims. That the newspaper’s attempt at discretion was not sufficient for the victims is evident.  However the Press Ombudsman believes the paper made a reasonable attempt to fulfil its requirements in regard to Principle 5.3.

During an exchange of correspondence between the complainant and The Clare Champion, which was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman’s Office, disagreement arose as to how the newspaper obtained details of the exact amount of money stolen.   The newspaper said that the details of the crime were obtained from a reliable Garda source.  The complainant produced a letter from the Gardaí stating that they had not disclosed the amount to the newspaper. This is not an issue which the Press Ombudsman can take into account in making his decision as the complaint was taken on the basis of an alleged breach of Principle 5,  and this Principle is not relevant to any dispute about the source of the information.

19 December 2014