A Man and the Irish Daily Star and the Irish Daily Star Sunday

The Press Ombudsman has decided that on the basis of the information before him he cannot make a decision on a complaint that articles published in the Irish Daily Star Sunday on 14 March 2010 and the Irish Daily Star on 15 March 2010 were in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.
 

The articles, which were identical in all essential respects, reported that the complainant had made certain statements when interviewed at the door of his home by a reporter about his earlier association with a young woman who had died tragically.

The man asserted, through his solicitor, that he did not give any interview to the reporter and that he had not made the comments attributed to him. He also asserted that he had not engaged in a conversation for a considerable length of time with the reporter, as claimed by the newspaper.

The newspaper offered to meet the complainant, together with his solicitor, under the auspices of the Office of the Press Ombudsman, to see if a satisfactory resolution of the complaint could be achieved. This offer was turned down by the complainant.

In subsequent correspondence, the newspaper provided the Press Ombudsman with memoranda both from the reporter who had written the story and from a photographer who had accompanied her, supporting the version of events printed in the newspaper. The complainant’s solicitors continued to maintain that the comments attributed to the complainant were not made by him, that the photographer could not have heard the exchange, and that the exchange did not last for the length of time stated by the newspaper.

As the memoranda were dated approximately a month after the date of publication of the article, the Press Ombudsman requested sight from the newspaper of its reporter’s original recorded notes to assist him in coming to a decision in the case. The newspaper, however, declined to furnish these notes.

There is a complete conflict of evidence between the complainant and the newspaper about what happened at the complainant’s doorstep. Given the newspaper’s decision not to allow access to the reporter’s original recorded notes, and on the basis of the information before him, it is not possible for the Press Ombudsman to resolve this conflict and to determine definitively what transpired. It is consequently not possible for him to decide whether or not the article breached the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

27 October 2010