Sean Quinn and Quinn Insurance Limited and the Sunday Tribune

Complaint

A & L Goodbody, Solicitors, complained on behalf of their clients, Mr Sean Quinn and Quinn Insurance Limited, that an article published in the Sunday Tribune on 22 February 2009 which published a large photograph of Mr Quinn above the headline “WAS THIS A CRIME?” breached Principles 1.1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2.1 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3.1 (Fairness and Honesty) and 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. They complained that although there was no suggestion in the article that Mr Quinn was or could have been guilty of any criminal activity, his photograph is associated with the article, and this was grossly unfair to him. A & L Goodbody also complained that Mr Quinn was not contacted by the newspaper prior to publication and was therefore not given an opportunity to defend his good name.

The newspaper defended its use of Mr Quinn’s photograph in an article which it described as a comment piece on one of the biggest news stories of the year. It stated that Mr Quinn was a key player in the controversy relating to the lending of money by Anglo Irish Bank to buy shares in the bank from Sean Quinn, and the use of his photograph was therefore entirely legitimate. The newspaper said that it never suspected, claimed, implied or alleged that Mr Quinn had done anything wrong in relation to the “Anglo 10”, and therefore had no reason to ask him to comment in advance of publication of the article. Although rejecting the complaint, the newspaper offered the complainants a right of reply, either in its letters page or as a separate article. This offer was turned down by the complainants.

Decision

The article is, virtually in its entirety, a commentary on news and information already in the public domain, and the complainants did not provide evidence that any factual statement in the article was incorrect. The article does not contain any report or information that the complainants had committed any crime or was complicit in the commission of any crime. In these circumstances, the complaint under Principle 1.1 of the Code of Practice is not upheld.

The article did not report any conjectures, rumours or unconfirmed reports as if they were fact, and therefore did not present any breach of Principle 2.1.

However, the direct association of the dramatic headline “WAS THIS A CRIME?” with the large photograph of Mr Quinn amounted to an ambiguous and, in the circumstances, unfair publication of news and information under Principle 3.1 of the Code. It therefore presented a breach of Principle 3.1, to which the offer of a right of reply would not have been an appropriate or sufficient response.

The newspaper’s decision not to contact the complainants for a comment prior to publication is not a breach of the Code of Practice, as the facts related to the complainants in the text of the article are not in dispute.

There is no evidence that the material referred to was based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded allegations, and accordingly the complaint under Principle 4 is not upheld.

14 May 2009

The Sunday Tribune appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.