Dr James McDaid TD and the Irish Sunday Mirror

The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Irish Sunday Mirror made an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint made by Dr James McDaid TD about a breach of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals in an article published on 11 April about a traffic accident in which he was involved.

Dr McDaid complained under Principle 1.2 (Truth and Accuracy) that the report was misleading and distorted, under Principle 2.2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) that the article relied on conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports, under Principle 3.1 and 3.2 (Fairness and Honesty) that the article was not fair and honest, Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) that he was entitled to the constitutional protection of his good name, and under Principle 5.2 (Privacy) that there was no respect for his sensibility as he was unaware that the information about the car accident was in the public domain until his return from holiday some four days after it was published.

The newspaper offered to publish a clarification of what it accepted was a minor collision in which only superficial damage was sustained by the vehicles involved, and submitted the text of a clarification to Dr McDaid, which he found unacceptable. It then drafted and offered to publish a more detailed clarification, which included an apology for any confusion caused as a result of the report. Dr McDaid said the second clarification was unacceptable because it did not contain a statement accepting that the original article was “poorly researched, inaccurate, exaggerated and conveyed unmistakeable innuendo” against him. The newspaper said that it believed the second clarification offered to Dr McDaid had adequately met the requirement of the Code of Practice that, “where appropriate, a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published promptly and with due prominence”.

The newspaper’s offer to publish a clarification of the details of the accident, together with an apology, was appropriate and sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve the complaints made under Principles 1.2 and 3.1 of the Code of Practice that the report was misleading and distorted and contained innuendo.

There is no evidence that particular remarks attributed in the article to “a source close to Deputy McDaid” breached Principle 2.2, as they were duly attributed to that source, and not reported as fact.
While Dr McDaid raised a query under Principle 3.2 as to whether the article was in the public interest, there was no evidence to suggest that the material published was obtained through misrepresentation or subterfuge, as would be required to present a breach of Principle 3.2.

There is a direct conflict of evidence between the parties as to whether or not attempts were made to contact the complainant prior to publication of the article and, on the evidence available, no decision can therefore be made on the complaint that the report breached the requirement of Principle 4 that publications should take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.

In the light of the evidence that the incident concerned took place in a public place and involved a public person, the complaint that the article breached Principle 5.2 of the Code is not upheld.

18 August 2010