OShaughnessy and the Irish Mail on Sunday

The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint made by the General Secretary of the Building and Allied Trade Union, Mr Patrick O’Shaughnessy, that the Irish Mail on Sunday breached Principles 3.2 (Fairness and Honesty), 4 (Respect for Rights) and 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. He further decided that the newspaper offered sufficient remedial action to resolve Mr O’Shaughnessy’s complaint under Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and 3.1 (Fairness and Honesty) of the Code of Practice.

Mr O’Shaughnessy complained, through his solicitors, that an article published on 4 April 2010 distorted the facts by linking certain actions of his with financial difficulties being experienced by his trade union. He also complained about a reference in the article suggesting that the purchase by him of a new vehicle had incurred the disapproval of members of the trade union, and he complained about the taking and publishing of two photographs of him, one of which was taken at a shopping centre at the weekend.

The photographs taken of Mr O’Shaughnessy were taken in public places.. In these circumstances, neither their taking nor their publication represented a breach of Mr O’Shaughnessy’s privacy under Principle 5. As no evidence was presented that the photographs were taken through misrepresentation or subterfuge, as would be required to present a breach of Principle 3.2, the complaint in this regard is also not upheld.

While the article was obviously quite unwelcome to Mr O’Shaughnessy, Mr O’Shaughnessy is the Chief Executive of a well-known trade union and in these circumstances, it could be expected that the actions of a person in his position might come under public scrutiny from time to time. On this occasion, the newspaper did contact Mr O’Shaughnessy in advance of publishing the article, and the article included a number of statements from him. When initially contacted by Mr O’Shaughnessy’s solicitors, the newspaper offered him the opportunity of a right of reply, and said he could use it to take issue with any aspect of the report and could touch on any other matters of relevance. This offer was repeated in the newspaper’s response to the complaint after the complainant’s solicitors contacted the Office of the Press Ombudsman. In all of the circumstances, the offer by the newspaper to give the complainant a comprehensive right of reply was sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve the complaints made under Principles 1, 2 and 3.1.

There was no evidence that the newspaper knowingly published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, or that it did not take reasonable care in checking facts before publication. The complaint made under Principle 4 that the article mounted a serious attack against Mr O’Shaughnessy’s honesty and integrity on the basis of quotes from unnamed sources is therefore not upheld.

17 September 2010