Decided by the Press Council on appeal

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. 

**The complainant originally requested anonymity in the drafting of the Press Ombudsman’s decision.  On completion of the consideration of the appeal by the editor the complainant consented to his name being associated with the decision.  The complainant was Mr Brian Lohan

The editor of The Nationalist appealed the Press Ombudsman’s decision to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds that the Press Ombudsman had erred in his application of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice.

Cork Cannabis Activist Network appealed the Press Ombudsman’s decision to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds that the Press Ombudsman had erred in his application of the Code of Practice.  In its appeal the Network highlighted evidence previously submitted as part of its complaint, and submitted further evidence to support its belief that the statements complained about were factually incorrect.

Deputy Murphy appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman on the grounds that there had been an error in the Press Ombudsman’s application of the Code of Practice

The editor of Kerry’s Eye  appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds that (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.