ODonoghue and the Irish Daily Mail

Complaint

Mr O’Donoghue complained about an article published in the Irish Daily Mail on 17 November 2009 entitled “The fact Wayne O’Donoghue lives with his guilt is the best reason not to reinstate the death penalty” which he said was in breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals (Truth and Accuracy). Mr O’Donoghue complained that as his son, Wayne, had never been convicted of the crime of murder, the headline was inaccurate.

The newspaper responded that neither the article nor the headline suggested, nor could they on any reasonable reading be taken to suggest, that Wayne O’Donoghue had committed murder. It further argued that all headlines should be read in the context of the accompanying article – which had made clear that Mr O’Donoghue had been convicted of manslaughter, had served his sentence, and was re-building his life. The paper offered the complainant an opportunity to write a letter for publication, but this offer was deemed inadequate by the complainant.

Decision

The headline to the article related to comments made by the retired President of the High Court when he suggested that the death penalty might be “revisited” for certain types of murder. The text of the article was based on two case histories – that of Mr Joe O’Reilly, who was convicted of murder, and that of Mr Wayne O’Donoghue, who was convicted of manslaughter. Although the article made clear that Mr O’Donoghue’s conviction had been for manslaughter, not murder, no credible reason was offered for the inclusion of, and the dramatic headline referring to, his conviction in an article arguing against the reintroduction of the death penalty, which could not have been imposed for this offence. In these circumstances, the headline was significantly misleading, and in this respect a breach of Principle 1, for which the publication of a letter to the editor would not have been an adequate remedy. This part of the complaint is therefore upheld.

Mr O’Donoghue also complained that references in the article to his son’s private life were in breach of Principle 5 (Privacy). The Press Ombudsman accepts, in this regard, the newspaper’s contention that the brief, generalized and non-specific material relating to Mr Wayne O’Donoghue’s whereabouts and activities were not a breach of his privacy. This part of the complaint is therefore not upheld.

6 January 2010

The newspaper appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council.