Hogan and the Sunday World

Complaint

Mr Dick Hogan complained that an article in the Sunday World on 1 February 2009 was a breach of five Principles of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. He complained that it breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) for a number of reasons, including its use of photographs and photograph captions, in its account of his resignation as a company director from the House of Prayer, and because it had given a misleading impression of him personally and of his activities. He also complained that the article breached Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) in that it contained a mixture of fact, untruths, conjecture, comment, rumour and unsubstantiated reports; Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) in that it implied that he was involved in a disreputable organization; Principle 5 (Privacy) in that it had publicized his private affairs countrywide; and Principle 8 (Incitement to Hatred) in that the publicity about him in the article came close to incitement and had made him and his family feel vulnerable.

The newspaper replied that its article was based on material in the Companies Registration Office, and on the opinions of a former member of the House of Prayer, and that its investigation of the House of Prayer was a matter in the public interest. It further responded that telephone calls it had made in an attempt to contact the complainant for a comment prior to the publication of the article had not been returned.

Decision

The article complained of was about the resignation of the members of the Board of Directors of the House of Prayer, including the complainant, in the context of an investigation by the newspaper into the management, control and funding of that organization. A large part of the complaint related to impressions that the complainant maintained had been created by the publication of this material.

The information contained in the article supports the newspaper’s contention that its investigation was in the public interest, and material in the article was appropriately sourced either to documents in the public domain (i.e. the Companies Registration Office) or attributed to specified sources. While the complainant objected to some of the statements attributed to the newspaper’s sources, insofar as any of the statements complained of are comment, conjecture, rumour or unconfirmed reports, directly or indirectly attributed to a source, the freedom of newspapers to publish such matter is protected under the Code of Practice as long as their attribution to a source is clear. The statements under complaint are therefore not in breach of Principle 1 or Principle 2 of the Code of Practice.

There is no evidence to suggest that the newspaper knowingly published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations. Its attempt to contact the complainant supported its contention that it took reasonable care in checking facts before publication. The complaint under Principle 4 is therefore not upheld.

What the complainant describes as his private affairs are in fact public affairs as documented in the Companies Registration Office, and the complaint can therefore not be upheld under Principle 5.

Although the complainant provides evidence of a feeling of vulnerability because of the publicity that has accrued as a result of the publication of the article concerned, this falls far short of the evidence required to prove that a breach of Principle 8 has occurred.

The complainant’s belief that the article generally cast him in a poor light was not supported by sufficient evidence to enable the Ombudsman to conclude that this amounted to a breach of any of the Principles of the Code of Practice cited by him.

6 July 2009