ODonoghue and the Irish Daily Star

The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by Mr. Ray O’Donoghue on behalf of his son Wayne about an article in the Irish Daily Star that contained information about his son’s private life. Three other complaints about the same article were not upheld, and no decision was made in relation to two other complaints.

Mr. O’Donghue complained about an article about his son in the Irish Daily Star on 16 November 2009, headlined: “CONVICTED CRIMINAL HASN’T A CARE IN THE WORLD: Killer Wayne raises a glass to his new life.” The article and the accompanying photographs, he said, were in breach of Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals.

Mr. O’Donoghue said that his son was entitled to his privacy without intrusion by the media. It was his son’s right, he said, to try and rebuild his life without continual intrusion.

The newspaper rejected any contention that it had unjustifiably intruded into his son’s privacy. It said that Mr. O’Donoghue was likely to remain a figure of curiosity probably for the rest of his life, that this informed its attitude to the “Wayne O’Donoghue story”, and that this attitude would persist far into the future.

Principle 5 of the Code of Practice says that privacy is a human right and that everyone’s private life must be respected. This includes Mr. O’Donoghue. While the publication of information about someone’s private life without their consent is not necessarily a breach of the Code of Practice, the publication of such substantial, detailed, textual and pictorial information about Mr. O’Donoghue’s private life in this article is not justifiable solely by the rationale put forward by the newspaper – the satisfaction of public curiosity.

As the information concerned was not part of the public record, and its publication was not justifiable under any of the other provisions of Principle 5, the complaint under Principle 5 of the Code of Practice is therefore upheld.

Three other complaints about the article were not upheld.

Mr O’Donoghue also complained that a reference in the article to Wayne O’Donoghue’s employment was inaccurate and therefore a breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy). As the alleged inaccuracy was not significant, the complaint about this statement is not upheld.

He also complained that the contents of the article breached Principles 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and 4 (Respect for Rights). As there was insufficient evidence to support Mr. O’Donoghue’s complaints that the article breached the specific requirements of these Principles, these complaints are not upheld.

No decision was made about two further complaints.

Mr. O’Donoghue also complained under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) that a statement in the article about his son’s actions prior to the discovery of the body was inaccurate, and under Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) that the statement in question did not distinguish fact from comment. As the Press Ombudsman’s investigative role is confined to assessing evidence voluntarily made available by both parties, there is insufficient evidence available to support any decision about the accuracy or otherwise of statements made in the course of a criminal trial which were not the subject of a decision by judge or jury. In these circumstances, no decision can be made on these complaints.

26 February 2010

Both The Irish Daily Star and Mr O’Donoghue appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.