Treacy and the Irish Daily Mail

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint made on behalf of Ms Jean Treacy that an article in the Irish Daily Mail on 19 June 2010 was in breach of Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. A number of other complaints about the article were not upheld.

Ms Treacy’s solicitors complained inter alia that the article breached their client’s privacy because it identified their client’s place of employment and its location. Although a considerable amount of information about the complainant and her then place of employment was previously published as the result of her involvement as a key witness in a high-profile court case, relatively few members of the public would have been aware of the details of her current employment. The gratuitous publication of this information, which could expose her to further unwelcome attention and potential intrusion, failed to reflect the respect for the privacy and sensibility of individuals enjoined by Principle 5.2 of the Code of Practice. In the absence of any evidence that the publication of such information was in the public interest, this was a breach of Principle 5 and in this respect the complaint is upheld.

Ms Treacy’s solicitors also complained that the publication of a photograph of her was a breach of her privacy under Principle 3 and Principle 5 of the Code because it had been obtained by watching and besetting her at her place of work.

As the photograph was taken in a public place, and as there was no evidence of watching and besetting other than the complainant’s assertion, the complaints about the publication of the photograph under Principles 3 and 5 are not upheld.

Ms Treacy’s solicitors also complained that quotations in the article attributed to the complainant were false and inaccurate. The remarks attributed to Ms Treacy in the article were remarks that she was purported to have made to reporters and were reproduced, without any more detailed attribution, from another newspaper in which they had appeared thirteen days earlier. The newspaper offered to correct the remarks when the complainant’s solicitors pointed out that they were inaccurate. While Ms Treacy’s solicitors responded that their client believed that the offer was calculated to further violate her privacy, the newspaper’s offer to publish a correction was an offer of sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve the complaint made under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

Some of the material in the article related to evidence given in a court case in which Ms Treacy was a witness. The re-publication of evidence given in a court case is protected by Principle 5.2 of the Code of Practice, since it is material that is of public record.

Other material raised in this complaint, other than material about the complainant’s private life that had featured in the court case, was generally inconsequential, or already in the public domain, or was clearly speculation, and as such did not present a breach of Principle 5.

17 September 2010