Decided by the Press Council on appeal

Mr Doyle appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds that (1)  the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published  procedures for submitting and considering complaints and  (2) there was an error in the Press Ombudsman’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.

Principle 5 - Privacy  - The facts are accurately summarised in the Press Ombudsman’s decision. She held that the publication of a photograph showing the car registration number and taxi rooftop licence number of the complainant’s taxi was in the circumstances of the case a breach of the complainant’s right to privacy under Principle 5 of the Code of Practice. In her decision she stated that no public interest was served by enabling the complainant to be identified.

Principle 5 -  Privacy -  The facts are accurately summarised in the Press Ombudsman’s decision. She held that the publication of a photograph showing the taxi rooftop registration number of the complainant’s taxi was in the circumstances of the case a breach of the complainant’s right to privacy under Principles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Code of Practice. In her decision she stated that no public interest was served by enabling the complainant to be identified.

Mr O’Donnell appealed the Press Ombudsman’s decision on the grounds (a) that the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for submitting and considering complaints and (b) that there had been an error in the Press Ombudsman’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.

The editor of the Irish Examiner appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to uphold in part that Principle 1 of the Code of Practice had been breached.   He appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds that there had been an error in the Press Ombudsman’s application of Principle 1 of the Code.

Mr Leydon appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds (a) that the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for submitting and considering complaints and (b) that there had been an error in the Press Ombudsman’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.

Mr Cooper appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds (a) that the Press Ombudsman had erred in his application of the Code of Practice and (b) that the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for submitting and considering complaints.

The complainant appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds (a) the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for submitting and considering complaints and (b) that there had been an error in the application of the Code of Practice by the Press Ombudsman.

Mr Byrne appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds that significant new information was available that could not have been made available to the Press Ombudsman before he made his decision.

The complainants appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds that the Press Ombudsman had erred in his application of the Code of Practice.