Mr K Coughlan and the Irish Mail On Sunday

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint made on behalf of the Clerk of Dáil Eireann, Mr Kieran Coughlan, that an article in the Irish Mail on Sunday on 6 May 2012 was in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

The article – an editorial – commenting on the action taken by a government minister to amend his entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, stated that he “was allowed to revise the register” and suggested that the Clerk of the Dáil’s office had been lax in the matter.

Mr Coughlan complained through his solicitor that because any member of the Dáil was entitled by law to amend the register in respect of their interests, there was no question of him either allowing or disallowing such registration, and the article therefore breached Principle 1 of the Code.

The newspaper accepted that the statement complained of was incorrect, apologised to the Clerk of the Dáil, and offered to publish an apology and correction.

The apology and correction, which had been drafted by the complainant’s solicitor, read:
“In our edition of 6 May, we incorrectly suggested that the Clerk of Dáil Eireann, Kieran Coughlan, had “allowed” [a named member of the Government] to amend the Register of Members’ Interests to belatedly include information about a house owned by [a named member of the Government] in Dublin 4. In doing so, we improperly suggested that Mr Coughlan had conducted himself in a manner which amounted to dereliction of his duties to his Office and to the taxpayer. We unreservedly apologise to Mr Coughlan for this error.”

Whether an offer of an apology and correction amounts to sufficient remedial action to resolve an admitted breach of the Code of Practice depends on the significance of the breach and all the circumstances involved. While the offer made by the newspaper was welcome, the Press Ombudsman decided that it was essential, in this case, to uphold the complaint under Principle 1.

Mr Coughlan’s solicitors also complained under Principle 4 of the Code that the material was published without taking reasonable care as to its accuracy or otherwise, and in a fashion which showed no respect for their client’s rights. The newspaper responded that the admitted mistake about the function of the Clerk of the Dáil in relation to the Register of Members’ Interests was because the leader-writer believed that the functions of the Clerk of the Dáil were, in this respect, equivalent to those of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in the British House of Commons. It also maintained that while not enough care had been taken in checking the facts of the matter, it would be going too far to say that the statement was published without “any reasonable care” being taken as to its accuracy.

Principle 4 states that newspapers must take reasonable care in checking facts before publication. Checking facts is a prime requirement for establishing accuracy. Reliance on an unchecked belief is insufficient evidence that reasonable care has been taken in establishing a key fact and, for this reason, the complaint under Principle 4 is also upheld.

The Press Ombudsman decided not to uphold a complaint about the same article under Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) because he took the view that the issues raised by the complainant under this Principle had already been substantively and adequately dealt with in his decision under Principle 1.

He decided not to uphold a complaint under Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) because there was no evidence that the newspaper had obtained information by misrepresentation, subterfuge or harassment, which, in the context of this Principle, is required to support a decision that there had been an absence of fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of the information in question.

30 August 2012