Ms Deirdre Walshe and the Irish Examiner

The Press Ombudsman has decided  not to uphold a complaint by Ms Deirdre Walshe that  accounts of two Employment Appeal Tribunal hearings, published in the Irish Examiner on 22 and 23 November,  were in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy),  2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

The Tribunal hearings concerned the activities of an accountant who was contesting, as unfair, his dismissal from the Irish Coursing Club, of which the complainant’s brother, Mr Jerry Desmond, had been CEO.

Ms Walshe complained that the reports concerned contained unsubstantiated and untrue allegations about her brother, and that there were omissions relating to other evidence given during the hearings.      

The newspaper maintained that the reports complained of were fair, accurate and balanced representations of the hearings.  It also argued that an omission referred to by the complainant, which related to uncontested evidence given that ‘no funds had gone missing’, would not have changed the tenor of the articles, as the principal allegations made during the hearings were not that funds had gone missing, but that funds had been mis-spent.  The Press Ombudsman noted that in a subsequent report of the  hearings in October 2013 the newspaper included reference to evidence given that there was ‘never any money missing from the club accounts’.

The overriding principle in the reporting of proceedings such as these is that the reports should be fair and accurate, are not prejudicial to the right to a fair trial, and that the presumption of innocence is respected. The observance of this principle not infrequently results in the publication of damaging allegations made or implications arising from statements made about  individuals who – as in the case of the complainant’s brother – may not be in a position to contest the allegations or to defend their reputations.

The allegations complained about, while obviously deeply distressing to the complainant,  were not reported as fact, but were clearly reported as statements made during the Employment Appeals Tribunal hearings, and for this reason did  not breach the Code of Practice.  The complaint was therefore not upheld. 

5 November 2013