Sean Quinn and Quinn Insurance Limited and the Sunday Tribune

Complaint

A & L Goodbody, Solicitors, complained on behalf of their clients, Mr Sean Quinn and Quinn Insurance Limited, that an article published in the Sunday Tribune on 9 November 2008 breached Principles 1.1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2.1 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) 3.1 (Fairness and Honesty) and 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. The article, under the headline “Insurance education body sees sharp rise in Quinn staff queries”, reported that according to industry sources, an increased number of employees of the Quinn Group had recently applied to the Insurance Institute of Ireland for enrolment on courses. A & L Goodbody complained that these “industry sources” had their facts wrong. They also complained about the basic premise for the article, which they said was that a fine imposed on the Quinn Company by the Financial Regulator had caused staff to fear for their jobs and led to a surge of applications for Insurance Institute of Ireland courses.

The newspaper rejected the complaints and stated that the article did not link the increase in the application for Insurance Institute of Ireland courses to the fine imposed on the company. The newspaper also said that it had paraphrased a statement provided by Quinn Insurance to its journalist, taking care not to omit the key points, and that any references in the article to “industry sources” were not presented as fact, but were duly attributed. Although rejecting the complaint, the newspaper offered the complainants a right of reply, either in its letters page or as a separate article. This offer was turned down by the complainants.

Decision

The article quoted from a spokeswoman for the Quinn company and from industry sources. The accuracy or inaccuracy of matter attributed to industry or other anonymous sources is not open to verification by the Press Ombudsman, and the lack of verifiability of such sources is part of the context in which it is published and may be evaluated by readers. There was no evidence that the article did not strive for truth and accuracy, and the complaint under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice is therefore not upheld.

Principle 2.1 of the Code of Practice provides that comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact. Any comments, rumours and unconfirmed reports in the article were duly attributed to sources, including anonymous sources, or reported as such, and not as fact. They did not, therefore, breach Principle 2.1 of the Code of Practice.

There was no evidence that the newspaper did not strive for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of the information contained in the article. Neither was there evidence that it published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, or that it did not take reasonable care in checking facts before publication. The complaints under Principle 3.1 and 4 are therefore not upheld.

14 May 2009