Ms S Grimes and The Irish Mail On Sunday

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint by Mrs Susanna Grimes that an article in the Irish Mail on Sunday on 19 August 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 breach of Principle 1 because there was insufficient evidence that it strove for truth and accuracy,  and of Principle 4 because there was insufficient evidence that it had taken reasonable care in checking facts before publication.

Complaints about the article under Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and Principle 5 (Privacy) were not upheld.

The complainant said that statements in the article - attributed solely to an unnamed “family friend” - to the effect that she was unhappy about her sons’ relationship with a named young woman were untrue and effectively portrayed her as a hypocrite. She asked for the publication of an apology to state, inter alia, that this report was neither based on sources close to the family, nor true.

The newspaper offered to publish a statement, in its “Corrections and Clarifications” column, including an apology for any “confusion” that may have arisen.  The offer was turned down by the complainant.

The publication of an anonymous and therefore unverifiable rumour or piece of gossip that may have serious implications for the person who is its subject, without any evidence that it had been appropriately checked, can reasonably be assumed to be a breach of the requirements of Principles 1 and 4 mentioned above.   In these circumstances, the apology and  correction offered by the newspaper fell significantly short of what would be required to remedy this breach, and this failure was not ameliorated by the newspaper’s offer to “reiterate” statements which the complainant had not, in fact, made.

The complaints under these Principles are therefore upheld.

Complaints under three other Principles of the Code were not upheld.

Because the statements complained of were clearly a rumour, and equally clearly attributed to a source, albeit an anonymous one, no ascertainable breach of Principle 2 of the Code occurred.

There was also no evidence that the information published was obtained through misrepresentation, harassment or subterfuge, as would be required to support a breach of Principle 3 of the Code.

The publication of unverifiable gossip about celebrities and their families is not necessarily, and not in this case, the type of actual breach of personal privacy envisaged by Principle 5 of the Code of Practice.     For this reason the complaint under Principle 5 of the Code is not upheld.

22 October 2012