The family of the late Mr Michael Devoy and The Irish Times

The Press Ombudsman has decided that an article published in The Irish Times on 20 January 2014, about the circumstances surrounding the murder of a young man in Dublin, was not in breach of Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

The family of the late Mr Michael Devoy complained through their solicitors about the inclusion in the article of reference to a medical condition from which the late Mr Devoy had suffered.  They said that the inclusion of this reference in the article breached Principle 5.1 of the Code of Practice because it did not respect the “private and family life, home and correspondence” of everyone, and Principle 5.3 because it did not show any regard for the feelings of grieving families.  They said that there was no public interest in reporting on the medical history of the late Mr Devoy, which they said was unrelated to the subject matter of the article under complaint.

The newspaper responded that the information in relation to Mr Devoy’s health was put on the public record by him, as it was volunteered on his behalf in open court at a sentencing hearing in 2006.  It said that it believed that the late Mr Devoy clearly believed that it was sufficiently in the public interest to warrant it being disclosed by him in open court, and that no request was made at that time that this aspect of his testimony not be reported. The newspaper offered to delete the reference to the late Mr Devoy’s health from the online archive.

The Press Ombudsman found that the reference to the late Mr Devoy’s prior medical history, coming as it did some eight years after it was cited in evidence during a court hearing and at a time when his family were grieving over his death,  was understandably very unwelcome and upsetting for his family.  However, the material published, forming as it did evidence given during a court hearing, was on the public record.   Its publication is therefore specifically protected by Principle 5.2 of the Code which states “... the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record ....”.  The complaint is therefore not upheld.

10 July 2014

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