Sullivan and the Irish News of the World

The Press Ombudsman has decided that the taking of a photograph published to illustrate an article in the News of the World on 17 April last breached Principle 5 of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines. A number of other complaints were not upheld, and it was not possible for him to decide, based on the evidence before him, on a number of other complaints made under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code.

The article was about the alleged refusal by the Shell to Sea campaigner, Jerrie Ann Sullivan, to hand over a tape to the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission. The tape contained comments made by members of the Garda Siochana about Ms Sullivan and another Shell to Sea campaigner. The article included a photograph of Ms Sullivan taken as she stood inside her house behind a glass-panelled door. While the newspaper said that the photograph was taken from a public road, it was clearly taken of Ms Sullivan standing inside her own home, in a private place where she should have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and was published without her consent. In these circumstances, the taking of the photograph breached Ms Sullivan’s expectation of privacy, and the complaint under Principle 5 is therefore upheld.

Ms Sullivan also complained Under Principle 1 that the article inaccurately stated that she refused to hand over what was described in the article as the ‘rape tape’. Ms Sullivan stated that she had already handed over all of the item described as the ‘rape tape’ to university authorities on l4 April – before the article was published - and that the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission was free to collect the camera that day. There is no doubt that this alleged inaccuracy was a very crucial part of Ms Sullivan’s complaint, since the entire article centred on her alleged refusal to hand over the ‘rape tape’. In response to a request from the Office of the Press Ombudsman, Ms Sullivan submitted additional detailed material about how and when events relating to the handling of the tape occurred. The only thing that could be definitively ascertained from this information was the fact that the complainant had handed over the tape to the authorities of her university on 14th April, three days before the article appeared. However, without any verifiable corroborative evidence from either side as to exactly what was contained on this tape, and what happened to it subsequently, it was impossible for the Press Ombudsman to make a decision on this part of the complaint.

Ms Sullivan also complained that the article’s description of the interaction between her and the newspaper’s reporter at her front door was untrue. Unfortunately, as there was no corroboration of either of the disputed versions of the events concerned, it is also not possible for the Press Ombudsman to make a decision as to what exactly transpired at Ms Sullivan’s door.

A number of other complaints made under Principles 1, 2, 3 and 4 were not upheld.

Ms Sullivan also complained under Principle 1 about a statement in the article that said that her home address and other personal contact details were located on a named website, as she felt that publication of this statement negated a claim, also referred to in the article, that she believed that Gardai had leaked her name and address to the media, as the contact address she had given to Gardai was a different address. Publication of the statement complained about did not breach Principle 1 of the Code, since the accuracy of the information published was not in question.

A complaint under Principle 2 that there was a conflict of interest involving one of the writers of the article was not upheld, as there was no evidence that remarks previously broadcast by the writer disclosed a conflict of interest, as the complainant maintained.

A complaint under Principle 3 that the information published was taken through subterfuge and harassment was not upheld. While a call to her door by a reporter from a national newspaper was obviously unwelcome to the complainant, particularly as she had already made a public plea for privacy, she was centrally involved in the controversial matters concerned, had already made public statements about the matter, and there was no evidence that harassment or subterfuge was involved.

There was no evidence that the newspaper knowingly published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, or that it did not take reasonable care in checking facts before publication, as would be required to support a breach of Principle 4 of the Code.

13 July 2011

The complainant appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.