OMB. 1930/2024 - A Woman and Independent.ie

The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from a woman about an article published by Independent.ie in February 2024.  The article is a report about a sentencing hearing at which a businessman who had been convicted of fraud was jailed. The complainant is a member of the convicted man’s family.  She states that her relative has given his “written consent” to the complaint.  She also states that her complaint is about “the totality of the reporting” on her relative’s case by the publication.

The complainant states that the publication breached Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 7 (Court Reporting) of the Code of Practice.  Citing Principle 5 in full, she states that her family members are not public figures, and that the publication has nevertheless published their “near full” address, as well as her mother’s name, and has disclosed the complainant’s disability and address.  The complainant argues that Principle 7 was breached because the article was not fair and balanced.  She said it omitted evidence presented in a 2004 hearing, which, she said, was presented to the court “in this case”. 

In response, the publication notes that the article in question made no reference to the complainant or any disability.  (By way of clarification, it further points out that these matters had been put on the public record by the businessman who was the subject of this sentencing hearing during a case in 2019.)  It quotes the reference in Principle 5 to “the right to report judicial proceedings”.  It states that it is “normal practice” in court reporting for names and addresses to be reported unless a court rules otherwise, and that no application for reporting restrictions had been made in this case.

Decision

The Press Ombudsman has made her decision solely in respect of the article about which she received a formal complaint, a copy of which was submitted by the complainant as required. The Press Ombudsman can only consider specific complaints made in relation to asserted breaches of the Code of Practice in particular articles which are provided to her.  The complainant refers to a “totality of reporting” and has submitted screenshots of multiple headlines, but these cannot be considered to constitute part of her formal complaint.   

The Code of Practice upholds the right of the press to report on court proceedings, and also stipulates that the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or in the public interest.  This case fulfils all of these criteria. The inclusion of the address of the convicted man represents normal court reporting practice, as does the reference to the presence in court of his wife, and the inclusion of her name.  There is no reference in the article to the complainant or any aspect of her health.  There is no breach of Principle 5 of the Code.

This article is about a sentencing hearing for a convicted man and includes references to the findings of the jury at his recently concluded trial, and comments from the judge, as well as quotations from the victim impact statement provided by the victim of the man’s offences.  The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication was not obliged to include reference to other material in order for this report to be fair and accurate as required by the Code. There is no breach of Principle 7 of the Code.

11 July 2024