A Man and The Irish Times

Complaint

The complainant claimed that two articles published in The Irish Times were, in a considerable number of instances, in breach of six of the ten Principles of the Code of Practice: 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3 (Fairness and Honesty), 4 (Respect for Rights), 5 (Privacy) and 7 (Court Reporting). The articles complained of were primarily contemporaneous reports of civil proceedings involving the complainant and another party. In the course of these articles reference was also made to earlier tribunal proceedings involving the complainant and the same person. The complainant’s primary contention was that the publication of certain information that had formed part of the proceedings in these cases, and the omission of what he considered to be key evidence relating to both cases, amounted to the publication of unfair and inaccurate reports, and were in that and in other respects in breach of the Code of Practice.

The newspaper maintained that the articles complained of were reports of court proceedings and that it is impossible to give verbatim accounts of everything said in court proceedings or given over in evidence. It also maintained that it would be wholly inappropriate for the court reporter to exclude or alter sworn testimony or evidence because one of the parties to the case disagreed with it. It stated that the court reports were supplied by a trusted court reporter who was present in court for both hearings.

Decision

A core issue to be decided in relation to all of the complaints submitted by the complainant is whether the reports are fair and accurate. The complainant did not claim that the reports of the court or tribunal proceedings concerned were significantly factually inaccurate.

Although the Code of Practice does not define fairness in any detail in relation to reports of court or tribunal proceedings, a reasonable person reading such reports has a right to expect that they contain elements of the evidence adduced by both sides, as well as a fair and adequate summary of the judgment. Newspaper accounts of court or tribunal proceedings are not, and do not purport to be, transcripts, and litigants or witnesses may well take exception to the omission from such reports of evidence considered critical by them, but such reports cannot be considered to be unfair or inaccurate solely on the basis that detail considered vital by one of the participants in contested proceedings has been omitted.

Principle 1

The complainant argued that because of certain omissions, the newspaper had not striven for truth and accuracy. However, the newspaper’s two reports included information about the claims made by both parties, as well as an account of the principal elements of the judgment in the court case. On this basis, the reports cannot be considered to be untruthful or inaccurate. There is no requirement on a newspaper to report all the details of contested evidence presented in court proceedings, and the omission of some evidence does not in itself present a breach of the Code.

Principle 2

The complainant argued that the re-publication of material from an earlier tribunal hearing amounted to the publication of conjecture and unconfirmed reports as if they were fact. The material complained of was, however, a repetition of allegations or claims which became part of the public domain as a result of the earlier hearing, and which were presented as such, and not as fact. The material complained of made it clear in all cases that the findings of the earlier tribunal had been in favour of the complainant. As this material was not presented as conjecture or as an unconfirmed report, it does not present a breach of the Code.

Principle 3

The complainant maintained that while there was no byline to either of the articles, it was reasonable to assume that a particular court reporter filed the report with the newspaper. As this particular reporter was, in the opinion of the complainant, absent from the first court hearing and possibly from the judgement delivered at the second, he maintained that the newspaper had not striven for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information. The newspaper maintained that the reporter was present in court on both days. Principle 3.1 provides that newspapers should strive for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information: an allegation that the journalist was absent from the courtroom, for whatever period of time, is not evidence that the acquisition and publication of the information concerned breached this Principle.

Principle 4

The complainant maintained that the newspaper failed to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication and, by omission of the complainant’s denials, allowed unfounded accusations and misrepresentation to be presented as fact. There is no requirement in the Code of Practice for a newspaper to check the truth or otherwise of claims or allegations made in the course of evidence given during court or tribunal proceedings, provided that the report makes clear that they are claims or allegations. In addition, there is no requirement on a newspaper to report all of the details of contested evidence presented in such proceedings, and the omission of some evidence does not in itself present a breach of the Code.

Principle 5

The complainant claimed that publication of some factual personal information amounted to invasion of his privacy and home life. The publication of the information objected to by the complainant, where this is either part of the court or tribunal proceedings or is contained in statements made in such proceedings, does not breach the Code of Practice.

Principle 7

The complainant maintained that the omission of some rebuttal evidence was a breach of the requirement for court reports to be fair and accurate and that, in choosing to ignore some evidence, the newspaper distorted the court report. It is not necessary for a newspaper to report all of the details of contested evidence presented in court, and the omission of some rebuttal evidence is not a breach of the Code.

11 June 2008

The complainant appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland