Fitzpatrick and the Irish Sun

Complaint

Ms Jacqueline Fitzpatrick complained that an article published by the Irish Sun about an alleged family dispute was in breach of Principles 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3 (Fairness and Honesty), 5 (Privacy), 6 (Protection of Source) and 8 (Incitement to Hatred) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. The article was contributed to the Irish Sun by a reporter on a local newspaper, to whom the complainant had earlier given information for local publication only. She complained that the story was re-published by the Irish Sun without her permission and against her wishes, that private photographs were used without her permission, that a statement in the article that she was “threatening to go to court” was untrue and that her private address should not have been published without her consent.

The newspaper replied that it published the story in good faith and that it was unaware of any constraint on publication of either the story or the photographs. It said that if it had been aware of any embargo on the publication of the story it would not have published it. It stated that it did not publish a full postal address, but published what appeared to be a townland address so as to distinguish the complainant from anyone else of the same name.

Decision

As the local newspaper concerned is not a member publication of the Press Council of Ireland, no investigation can be made into the content of any agreement between the complainant and that publication and its staff. In the circumstances, the Press Ombudsman cannot consider the general complaint about the republication of information without the complainant’s permission. There is no evidence that the article breached Principle 2 of the Code of Practice, and this complaint is not upheld.

The decision by the Irish Sun to publish information about the complainant’s address is acceptable in circumstances in which the publication of a name only might have led to avoidable confusion about the precise identity of the person concerned. The complaint under Principle 5 is not therefore upheld. As the complainant was herself the source of material for the article, no issue arises in respect of Principle 6, and there is no evidence to support the view that any of the very specific requirements which would present a breach of Principle 8 have been met. The complaints under these Principles are therefore not upheld.

However, the obtaining of private photographs for publication in and by a newspaper different from that for which permission was originally sought and given is, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, a breach of Principle 3.2 and the complaint is therefore upheld in this respect.

The newspaper did not respond to the complainant’s contention that the statement in the article that she was “threatening to go to court” was untrue. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this statement therefore presented a significant inaccuracy and in this respect is a breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

30 April 2009