Mr D Doyle and the Irish Sun

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint by Mr Donal Doyle that an article in the Irish Sun on 17 February 2012 was in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

The article, headlined “I’m sorry my son shot Shane” was based on a brief doorstep exchange between the reporter and the complainant about the conviction of the complainant’s son for murder. Mr Doyle alleged that some of the statements attributed to him in the article – and in particular the one on which the headline was based – were in large part fabricated. Others, he said, were based, not on his exchange with the reporter as implied, but on an earlier, accurately reported interview he had given voluntarily to another newspaper. He also complained about the publication of a photograph of him on the front page of the newspaper, which he said was taken while he stood in his front doorway.

The newspaper said that the article reflected the overall tenor of its reporter’s conversation with Mr. Doyle. It also stood by the publication of the complainant’s photograph. After an exchange of correspondence with the Office of the Press Ombudsman it offered to publish a denial by the complainant of the accuracy of the article. It subsequently offered to publish a revised version of this offer, and to publish a “right of reply” in the form of an interview with the complainant. These offers were turned down by the complainant. An offer by the complainant to meet with representatives of the newspaper was not taken up by the newspaper.

Mr Doyle provided substantial evidence that he had never accepted that his son was guilty of the crime for which he had been convicted, that he had refused numerous interview requests from journalists with the exception noted above, and that he had never agreed to the publication of an identifiable photograph of himself.

The newspaper was unable to provide evidence, such as its reporter’s notes, to support its contention that the article was an accurate reflection of what had transpired at the complainant’s doorway.

The Press Ombudsman’s opinion, on the balance of the evidence available, is that the article was significantly either misleading or distorted, and therefore a breach of Principle 1.

The publication of an identifiable photograph of Mr Doyle while he stood at his front door, without his permission and in a place where he would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, was not justified by considerations of the public interest as defined in the Code of Practice, and was therefore a breach of Principle 5 of the Code.

There was insufficient evidence to uphold complaints made under Principles 2, 3 and 4 of the Code.

20 July 2012