Coughlan and the Irish Mail on Sunday

The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint by Mr Kieran Coughlan that the taking and publishing of a photograph of him in the Irish Mail on Sunday on 11 September 2011 was a breach of Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

Mr Coughlan complained that the published photograph was taken in the private environs of his family home without his consent and was not justifiable by any considerations of the public interest.

The newspaper argued that they had taken and published Mr Coughlan’s photograph as part of a report on what they said was a matter of extreme public importance, in which they said he played a central role, and that the publication of his photograph was therefore justified in the public interest. The newspaper also said that although the complainant was on his own private property at the time the photograph was taken, his location when the photograph was taken was not a place in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Press Ombudsman’s view is that the complainant is a person who deals with public affairs under Principle 5.4 of the Code of Practice, and that the publication of a photograph of him in connection with events with which he is publicly associated does not amount to the publication of relevant details of his private life and circumstances which need a specific public interest justification, provided that the photograph has not been taken or published in breach of any other Principle of the Code of Practice.

Although the complainant was on his own private property when the photograph was taken, and it was taken without his consent, Principle 5.5 of the Code of Practice refers to private places rather than to private property. There are innumerable situations in which photographs may be taken of individuals on private property without their consent, and published, without any breach of Principle 5.5 occurring, and each case has to be considered on its merits.
 
Although the taking and publishing of the photograph on this occasion was evidently most unwelcome to the complainant, it did not reveal any specific details of his private life and circumstances, and his location at the time that the photograph was taken was in public view. In all of these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence to support a decision that Principle 5 had been breached.

10 November 2011