ODonoghue and the Irish Daily Star Sunday
Complaint
Mr O’Donoghue complained that an article published in the Irish Daily Star Sunday on 9th November 2008 was in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. He complained that a reference in the article to his son’s pending libel actions was inaccurate, that a reference to the family’s new home was both inaccurate and in breach of their privacy, and that a reference to the fact that his son was studying in another named country breached his privacy.
The newspaper advised the complainant that it believed his complaint was “entirely without foundation”, but offered him an opportunity to put the family’s point of view forward in the form of an interview. In a letter to the Office of the Press Ombudsman it stated that it completely refuted all allegations within the complaint and found it “quite impossible to believe that a perpetrator of one of the highest profile killings in the State could rightfully claim privacy under the Code of Practice.”
Decision
The Press Ombudsman firstly dealt with the complaint under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy).
The difference between the description of the O’Donoghue family home in the article and that offered by the complainant is not significant and therefore does not present a breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.
The statement in the article that there were three legal actions pending, and not five, is not a significant inaccuracy and therefore does not breach Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.
It is not possible to establish with certainty whether or not Mr O’Donoghue’s son will have to give evidence at any future libel hearings, and for this reason the Press Ombudsman cannot make a finding on this part of the complaint.
In dealing with the complaint under Principle 5 (Privacy), the Press Ombudsman first of all considered the offer made by the newspaper to publish an interview with the complainant or his wife in which they could state their point of view. Given that the issue raised by the complainant was one of privacy, an offer of further publicity self-evidently does not constitute sufficient remedial action to resolve the complaint.
The Press Ombudsman next considered the newspaper’s argument that it was “quite impossible to believe that a perpetrator of one of the highest profile killings in the State could rightfully claim privacy under the Code of Practice.”
Principle 5.1 of the Code of Practice states that privacy is a human right, protected as a personal right in the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the private and family life, home and correspondence of everyone must be respected. The Press Ombudsman therefore cannot accept the newspaper’s contention that there was no basis for a complaint about privacy under the Code of Practice because of the complainant’s son’s conviction. In the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, a criminal conviction does not abolish the right to privacy of any person. Each case will be judged in the light of its own circumstances and particularly in the light of the Code of Practice.
The article stated that Mr O’Donoghue’s son was attending college in another named country. However, as no details were given that could lead to the identification of the college concerned or to his son’s whereabouts, the limited information complained of, while undoubtedly unwelcome to Mr. O’Donoghue and his family, did not present a breach of Principle 5 of the Code of Practice.
The reference in the article to the complainant’s new home also gave no information that could lead to its identification or whereabouts. In the circumstances, the statements about the complainant’s house did not breach his privacy, and his complaint under Principle 5 is therefore not upheld.
15 January 2009