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 28 December 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 solicitors stated that the central theme of the article was that fines imposed by the Financial Regulator on Mr Quinn and his company, combined with the losses incurred by Mr Quinn arising from his investments in Anglo Irish Bank, severely dented Mr Quinn’s finances and left his company in a perilous financial state. They complained that there was no basis for a sentence in the article used to support this point. They also complained that the article inaccurately quoted the fine that was imposed on Mr Quinn by the Financial Regulator. Finally, they complained that neither Mr Quinn nor his company were contacted prior to publication of the article.
The newspaper responded that as the article was summing up already established and verifiable facts from 2008 for inclusion in a special end-of-year supplement, there was no reason why it should seek fresh comment from the company. It said that the article was also based on the published accounts of the Quinn Group and Quinn Insurance, as well as publicly available financial information. In relation to the reference in the article to the fine imposed by the Financial Regulator, it said that the amount of the fine quoted in the article was the total amount imposed by the Financial Regulator on Mr Quinn and his company. Although it rejected 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 newspaper’s error in the amount of the fine it reported as imposed by the Financial Regulator on Mr Quinn is significant in the context of an article posing the question: “Quinn still Ireland’s richest man?”. It is not excused by the newspaper’s explanation that this was justified because the fine concerned could be aggregated with the fine imposed on an entirely different legal entity - the company controlled by Mr Quinn’s family. This inaccuracy amounts to a breach of Principle 1.1 of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals, and the newspaper’s offer to the complainants of a right of reply was not adequate to address an inaccuracy that it had published and which it should therefore, under Principle 1 of the Code, have corrected. This part of the complaint is therefore 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
The Sunday Tribune appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.