A Man and the Sunday World

The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a number of complaints by a man about two articles published in the Sunday World which, he said, identified him as a person at the centre of allegations about a paedophile ring.

The articles concerned were based on a book by, and interviews with, a person who claimed that she had been sexually abused by a number of people as a young girl. They included a photograph of a person whom the newspaper said was one of the persons against whom these allegations had been made, and whom the paper described as a high-profile businessman. Although the facial features of the person in the photograph were pixilated, the complainant maintained that anyone who knew him would have recognized it as a photograph of him. He complained that the articles and photograph were in breach of Principles 1.1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2.1 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and 3.2 (Fairness and Honesty) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. He also complained that an approach to him in public by a reporter from the newspaper was in breach of Principle 5.2 (Privacy).

While matters other than those arising from the article were raised during an exchange of correspondence between the Office of the Press Ombudsman and the newspaper, the only matters to be decided relate to the contents of the articles and the complaints made about them.

There was no evidence that the newspaper did not strive for truth and accuracy in reporting the statements in question, as would be required for a breach of Principle 1.1.

In relation to the complaint under Principle 2.1, it is clear that all the statements complained of in the article were unconfirmed reports of allegations made by a named person about other, unnamed persons. As these were not reported as fact, there was no breach of Principle 2.1

There was no evidence that the newspaper obtained information, photographs or other material through misrepresentation or subterfuge, in breach of Principle 3.2.

The complainant maintained that readers would have no difficulty in linking the allegations in the article with the photograph and concluding that it was a photograph of him. The Press Ombudsman is not in a position to decide, on the available evidence, whether the photograph published is sufficiently specific to lead to identification of the complainant as the person against whom these allegations were made.

The method of approach to the complainant adopted by the reporter concerned – i.e. a request for comment - was reasonable in all the circumstances and did not amount to a breach of Principle 5.

The complaints are therefore not upheld.

8 June 2010