Power and the Irish Mail on Sunday

Complaint

Councillor J.J. Power, a Green Party local authority member in Co. Kildare, complained about a brief but significant reference to him in an article in the Irish Mail on Sunday on 20 January 2008. The article contained a sentence stating that Councillor Power “……. fell foul of the Standards in Public Office Commission in 2002 for failing to disclose political donations received before the general election that year.” Councillor Power complained that this was not true, and made his complaint under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

Councillor Power said that he had not failed to disclose political donations before the 2002 general election, but that the Statutory Declaration attached to his Donation Statement had not been accepted by the Standards in Public Office Commission when it was initially submitted because it had not been witnessed, as required, by a Peace Commissioner. He indicated that there were compelling personal reasons why the Declaration had not been witnessed, in the prescribed manner, at the time.

The newspaper maintained that Councillor Power had had difficulties with the Standards in Public Office Commission, but accepted that he had not failed to disclose political donations in the year in question. Accordingly, it repeated an offer that it had already made to Councillor Power to publish a clarification in the following Sunday’s newspaper. Part of the wording suggested by the newspaper was not acceptable to Councillor Power and part of it was, he said, untrue. Councillor Power then suggested an alternative wording, together with a number of other conditions which he wanted the newspaper to meet. These were that (a) the correction should occupy the same space as the original article in its entirety, and should appear on the same page; (b) it should appear on three consecutive Sundays, in that same space; and (c) the correction should be broadcast on KFM radio.

A number of attempts were made to resolve the matter through conciliation, which concluded with the newspaper offering to publish, as a correction, a wording broadly in line with what Councillor Power had requested. Councillor Power, however, insisted that the newspaper should also agree to the three conditions he had specified if there were to be a satisfactory resolution to his complaint.

Decision

As the newspaper’s depiction of Councillor Power’s relationship with the Standards in Public Office Commission contained an inaccuracy, and as the newspaper offered to publish a correction of this inaccuracy, the primary decision to be made is whether the offer made by the newspaper was sufficient.

The Code of Practice requires, under Principle 1.2, that any inaccuracy or misleading statement “shall be corrected promptly and with due prominence.” The decision of the Ombudsman is that the actions stipulated by Councillor Power as a condition for his agreement were, in the light of all the circumstances, unreasonable, that the newspaper’s final offer constituted sufficient remedial action on its part, and that therefore no further action was required.

Councillor Power appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland.

11 March 2008