Dwyer Family and the Irish Sun

Complaint

A complaint was received from a representative of the Dwyer family about an article published in the Irish Sun on 6 May 2009 reporting on events associated with the death of their son, Michael, in Bolivia. The family complained that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. The family objected in particular to the headline “DWYER WAS INVOLVED IN CARDINAL BOMB PLOT - New Bolivia terror claims”, and complained that the manner in which the article was written demonstrated a complete lack of sensitivity for the grieving family.

The newspaper responded that it was clear both from the sub-headline and the opening paragraph of the article that the material reported in the headline was a claim. It stated that the material contained in the article was a fair and accurate portrayal of the evidence provided in a Bolivian court. It also stated that it had given the family every chance to give their side of the story in a sympathetic manner and that in this regard it had included an assertion made by the family that the claims made by the Bolivian authorities that their son was a mercenary were “absurd”.

Decision

It is inevitable that any report of legal developments following a violent incident with international implications will include dramatic accusations and contested evidence. While the publication of this material was undoubtedly hurtful to the grieving family, its publication was, in the view of the Press Ombudsman, justified in the public interest.

In relation to the manner of publication, the sub-headline to the article was an unambiguous and prominent statement that the main headline was based on a claim. In addition, the newspaper
attributed all controversial, unverifiable or contested claims to its sources. Its decision to publish the rejection by the complainants of these claims was a further qualification of the allegations concerned.

In the light of this, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Press Ombudsman has decided that the article did not breach the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. The complaint is therefore not upheld.

4 September 2009