OReilly and the Irish Independent

The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Irish Independent made an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint by Mr Ramon O’Reilly that an article published by the Irish Independent on 21 July 2010 referring to his role in an industrial dispute was in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 4 (Respect for Rights) and 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

Mr O’Reilly is a trade union official who was prominently involved in an industrial dispute with Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council about waste collection. As part of a comment – which the newspaper said was facetious – about this dispute, the article concerned advised local residents to take their rubbish to the complainant’s house and dump their bins in his front garden.

Mr O’Reilly complained that although his address was not published in the article, as he is the only Ramon O’Reilly whose number and address are listed in the telephone directory, he was clearly identifiable as the object of this suggestion. Although he did not provide any evidence that anyone had taken the article’s advice, he argued that public reaction to the article was evidence that it had invaded the privacy of, and caused much distress to, his wife and family, and that a statement in the article that he had “caused this mess” was inaccurate.

He sought a public apology and a full retraction of the comments. The newspaper offered, as a gesture of goodwill, to publish a letter to the editor, a right of reply, or an interview with the complainant. The complainant turned down this offer.

The freedom of the press means, among other things, that publications are free to take sides in industrial disputes. In this context, the newspaper concerned would have been equally entitled, as part of the freedom of the press, and without exposing itself to a charge of incitement, to suggest facetiously, that householders should dump their bins on the front steps of the local authority offices. As the complainant’s statements had frequently been quoted in earlier reports, the newspaper’s offer of a right of reply to the situation created by the re-publication of his name in this article was, in all the circumstances, a reasonable offer capable of resolving the complaint.

9 December 2010