ODonoghue and the Irish Daily Star Sunday
The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint that the Irish Daily Star Sunday breached Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals in articles about Mr Wayne O’Donoghue’s private life and activities at an English university. He did not uphold three further complaints made under the same Principles.
The articles, published on 15 November 2009 over four pages, including the front page, featured a large number of photographs of Mr O’Donoghue as well as new information about his private life and relationships. Mr O’Donoghue complained, through his solicitors, that this breached the Code of Practice provisions on privacy, and that none of the information about him in the article could be regarded as being of legitimate public interest. He also complained that journalists attached to the newspaper had harassed him at his residence for a period of some days to the extent that he was effectively housebound, and had to seek the intervention of the British police and his university authorities to remove them.
The newspaper contended that it had not breached Principle 5 because it had not identified any of the complainant’s friends or girlfriend, the city or location of his university, or the course he was attending. It also maintained that the material published was almost identical to an article published on 28 January 2009, which the Press Ombudsman had found not to be in breach of Principle 5.
While the publication of information about someone’s private life, or of photographs, without their consent is not necessarily a breach of the Code of Practice, the publication in this article of such substantial, detailed, verbal and photographic information about Mr O’Donoghue’s private life is quite clearly quantitatively and qualitatively different from that published on 28 January 2009. Although publication of information about people’s private lives can be justified if publication is “in the public interest,” it is not justifiable solely by the rationale put forward by the newspaper - a rationale related solely to the amount of public interest stemming from his criminal conviction five years ago. The public interest test contained in the preamble to the Code of Practice relates to a matter capable of affecting the people at large, rather than the mere satisfaction of public curiosity. As the publication of this private information does not satisfy this public interest criterion, the complaint in this respect is upheld.
The newspaper responded to the complaint about harassment under Principle 3.3 that as it had not received any direct complaint from anyone present, it was unsure if there was any well-grounded allegation to address, and it declined to answer the specific allegations because they were made through a third party (i.e. the complainant’s solicitor). However, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the statement made by the complainant’s legal representative on his behalf. Behaviour constituting harassment can be justified under the Code of Practice only if it is in the public interest. Here, the general justification advanced by the newspaper - that Mr O’Donoghue’s conviction for manslaughter was a case that had attracted massive public attention and remained a matter of huge public interest - is not sufficient to justify the harassment complained of by Mr O’Donoghue’s legal representative, and the complaint in this respect is therefore upheld.
Three other complaints were not upheld.
A complaint under Principle 5.3 that the article caused grief to the family of Robert Holohan cannot be considered because it is a complaint made on behalf of a third party, without specific authorization from the third party concerned.
A complaint under Principle 5.5. that the newspaper published photographs of the complainant in a private place without his consent is not upheld because this Principle relates specifically to the taking of photographs without consent – not to their publication – and no evidence was forthcoming that the photographs were taken without consent. The complaint about their publication has already been addressed elsewhere in this decision.
A further complaint under Principle 5 that the articles had breached the privacy of the complainant’s girlfriend and her immediate family cannot be considered without specific authorization from the third parties concerned, because there was no evidence that the solicitor acting as the legal representative of the complainant was acting in the same capacity in relation to these individuals.
15 April 2010