Gantley and the Evening Herald

Decision of the Press Council

The Press Council admitted Mr Gantley’s application to appeal on the grounds of a procedural omission in that the Press Ombudsman’s decision dealt only with the complaint under Principle 1 and did not refer to the complainants’ assertion that the article had also breached Principles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8.

The Council upheld the Press Ombudsmans decision in respect of Principle 1.

The Council gave detailed consideration to the claim that the article breached Principle 2, which stipulates under 2.2 that “Comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact.” It took into account that the article was a comment piece, not a news story, and that the right of such pieces to express views strongly is affirmed under Principle 2.1. At the same time, in so far as comment or opinion pieces present material as fact, they must provide substantiations, or indications of source. In this case the author of the article made clear that he was writing from personal knowledge, but it would have been preferable if it had been made clear that this knowledge derived from his position as a former member of An Garda Siochana. The Council concluded, however, that since the complainant did not provide an adequate argument or evidence to refute the statements in the article, there was no basis for a decision that there had been a breach of Principle 2.

In respect of Principles 3, 4, 5 and 8 the Council decided that there had been no breach of the Code of Practice. The appeal was not allowed.