Doyle and the Sunday Independent

Complaint

Mr Doyle complained that a number of references to his late son in an article in the Sunday Independent of 21 September 2008 were in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights), Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 8 (Incitement to Hatred).

The article was about the rise of criminal gangs in Ireland and the manner in which they carry out their activities, and contained a number of references to Mr Doyle’s late son, which he believed to be untrue or based on conjecture. He complained that the publication of the material relating to his late son, for whom the family were still grieving, caused great offence to his family, may have stirred up hatred against them and may even have put their lives at risk.

The newspaper, in its response, said that it had never been its intention to add to Mr Doyle’s grief on his bereavement. However, it stated that the article was about a matter of the utmost public interest – relating as it did to the rise in criminal gangs in Ireland – and, as had been made clear in the article, had been compiled from confidential and reliable sources.

Decision

The reporting of gangland crime is, of its nature, almost exclusively dependent on confidential sources. The nature of confidential sources can be specified only to a limited degree by newspapers, and the protection of such sources is provided for under Principle 6 of the Code of Practice.

Principle 2.1 of the Code of Practice provides that comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact. The reliability of any such material published therefore depends on the reliability of the newspaper’s sources, to which the material must be attributed, although the specific identity of any confidential sources need not be published. Each of the statements which are the subject of the complaint, with the exception of three that are dealt with below, were either attributed to a confidential source or reported as a belief or suspicion communicated to the newspaper by an unnamed source, and not as fact. They did not, therefore, breach Principle 1 or Principle 2 of the Code of Practice.

The first of the other three statements that were the subject of the complaint was in relation to a reference to the complainant’s late son’s membership of a particular gang. Since there is no concrete evidence to prove or disprove this statement, the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding on it.

The second was in relation to a reference to the Spanish police as “docile”. Such a reference does not present a breach of the Code of Practice.

The third was in relation to a reference in the article that the complainant’s son was killed “by his own people”. It is clear, from repeated references throughout the article, that this is a reference to the young man’s associates rather than to his own family, and is therefore not inaccurate or in breach of the Code of Practice.

There is no evidence to support the complaint that the article breached Principles 4 or 5 of the Code of Practice. Nor is there evidence to support the complainant’s view that the article as a whole was in breach of Principle 8 by inciting hatred against him personally and other members of his family.

22 December 2008