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 8 February 2009 was in breach of 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. This, they contended, was because the article, without supplying any objective evidence or justification, had characterised their client, Mr Quinn, as “one of an unholy trinity of forces that landed us where we are” and had said that he was “now regarded as one of the villains of the recession”. They also complained that their client had not been contacted prior to publication and had not been given an opportunity to rebut the allegations.

The newspaper responded that the activities, decisions and life of Mr Quinn and his company were legitimate subjects for comment in the context of the ongoing debate about whether Mr Quinn was a victim of the downturn or whether his actions had contributed to the various crises which had led to the recession. It sought to justify the use of the term “villain” by reference to the fines imposed on Mr Quinn and Quinn Insurance Limited by the Financial Regulator. It contended that Mr Quinn’s activities in relation to Anglo-Irish Bank were arguably a contributory factor in the banking crisis. It maintained that prior contact with the complainants was not essential in the context of an article dealing largely with facts already in the public domain, but offered the complainants the opportunity to contribute a right of reply, either in its letters page or as a separate article. This offer was turned down by the complainants.

Decision

There was no evidence that the article breached Principle 1.1 of the Code of Practice. In these circumstances, there was no onus on the newspaper to contact the complainants prior to publication of the article.

The article complained of was clearly one of comment on current events and on individuals involved in those events and, as such, enjoys a large measure of protection under Principle 2.1 of the Code of Practice. The degree to which comment articles should be logically robust, evidentially compelling, or refrain from hyperbole or name-calling, is primarily a matter for the editor of the publication concerned. In the context of this particular comment article, the Press Ombudsman’s opinion is that a right of reply, of the kind suggested by the newspaper, constituted an offer of sufficient remedial action in response to the complaints made about this article under Principle 2.1, 3.1 and 4 of the Code. He recommends the further development of a reasonable level of mutual engagement between journalists and those about whom they write, in the interests of the freedom of the press, and of providing the public with the widest possible range of sources of information and commentary on current events. He also recommended that the offer of a right of reply should remain open for a reasonable time.

No further action is therefore required under the Code of Conduct.

14 May 2009