Ms Karen McHugh and The Irish Times
The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by Ms Karen McHugh under Principle 5.3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.
In December 2014 The Irish Times published a four part series “Anatomy of a car crash” examining in depth the first fatal car crash of 2014 in which two people were killed in County Mayo. The series included extensive and detailed information on the circumstances leading up to the car crash, the family and personal backgrounds of the two people killed, their funerals and autopsies.
Karen McHugh, the partner of one of those killed, complained that the articles breached Principle 5.3 of the Code of Practice. In a letter to the editor of The Irish Times she complained that the manner in which the series of articles was written, including publication of some intimate and personal material relating to the death of her partner, such as a personal message written by her following her partner’s death and read out at his funeral, details of how the pathologist carried out the autopsy on her partner’s body and the nature of the injuries found, showed no sympathy or discretion towards her or her partner’s family. Ms McHugh also raised the issue of the number and manner of approaches made by the newspaper to involve her, her family and the family of her partner in the research for the articles.
The editor responded to Ms McHugh. He expressed sympathy on behalf of The Irish Times to her on the death of her partner but defended the series of articles on the grounds that there was “an overwhelming public interest in looking behind fatal road accidents and in reporting on the terrible consequences for the many people that are affected and involved”. He argued that obligations under Principle 5.3 had been met as the newspaper “was mindful at all times of the need to employ sympathy and discretion and to have consideration for the bereaved”.
Through the Office’s conciliation process the editor reiterated his belief that the series of articles had not breached Principle 5.3, and said that at all times the newspaper had taken into account the complainant’s feelings, and had shown sympathy and discretion for her and all those involved. He said that it would have been remiss not to approach the complainant and her partner’s family in advance of writing the series of articles, and he went on to outline the approach which the newspaper had taken in seeking the views of Ms McHugh and others affected by the tragedy, so as to highlight the sympathy and discretion the newspaper had shown in carrying out its research. Ms McHugh was not satisfied with the response of the newspaper as, in her view, the editor had failed to address the majority of issues she had raised in her complaint and in particular the newspaper’s “total disregard and lack of respect” for the family’s desire not to be involved in the articles. As conciliation was not possible the complaint was referred to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.
I accept the newspaper’s claim that the articles were published in the public interest. It is important that the public is made aware of the consequences of dangerous driving and in particular of speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol. In addition the newspaper, in my view, acted appropriately in trying to involve the family and friends of those killed in the accident in its research for the series.
The issue that is central to this decision is the responsibility newspapers face under Principle 5.3 of the Code. Under this Principle I am upholding Ms McHugh’s complaint because I do not believe the newspaper exercised sufficient sympathy and discretion towards her and the family of her partner. The laudable intention behind the series could have been achieved without including the extensive and detailed intimate information that precipitated the complaint, especially when one considers that Ms McHugh and her partner’s family did not wish to be involved in the series.
14 April 2015
The newspaper appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland.