The Press Ombudsman has decided to partially uphold a complaint made on behalf of Mr Sean Quinn and Quinn Insurance Limited about an article published in 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 22 February 2009 which published a large photograph of Mr Quinn above the headline "WAS THIS A CRIME?" 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. They complained that although there was no suggestion in the article that Mr Quinn was or could have been guilty of any criminal activity, his photograph is associated with the article, and this was grossly unfair to him. A & L Goodbody also complained that Mr Quinn was not contacted by the newspaper prior to publication and was therefore not given an opportunity to defend his good name.

The newspaper defended its use of Mr Quinn's photograph in an article which it described as a comment piece on one of the biggest news stories of the year. It stated that Mr Quinn was a key player in the controversy relating to the lending of money by Anglo Irish Bank to buy shares in the bank from Sean Quinn, and the use of his photograph was therefore entirely legitimate. The newspaper said that it never suspected, claimed, implied or alleged that Mr Quinn had done anything wrong in relation to the "Anglo 10", and therefore had no reason to ask him to comment in advance of publication of the article. 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 is, virtually in its entirety, a commentary on news and information already in the public domain, and the complainants did not provide evidence that any factual statement in the article was incorrect. The article does not contain any report or information that the complainants had committed any crime or was complicit in the commission of any crime. In these circumstances, the complaint under Principle 1.1 of the Code of Practice is not upheld.

The article did not report any conjectures, rumours or unconfirmed reports as if they were fact, and therefore did not present any breach of Principle 2.1.

However, the direct association of the dramatic headline "WAS THIS A CRIME?" with the large photograph of Mr Quinn amounted to an ambiguous and, in the circumstances, unfair publication of news and information under Principle 3.1 of the Code. It therefore presented a breach of Principle 3.1, to which the offer of a right of reply would not have been an appropriate or sufficient response.

The newspaper's decision not to contact the complainants for a comment prior to publication is not a breach of the Code of Practice, as the facts related to the complainants in the text of the article are not in dispute.

There is no evidence that the material referred to was based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded allegations, and accordingly the complaint under Principle 4 is not upheld.

The Sunday Tribune appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.

Decision of the

Press Council

At its meeting on 12 June the Council gave careful consideration to the application to appeal but decided that the submission did not provide adequate grounds either in relation to new evidence or to any error in procedure or in the application of the principles of the code to warrant a full consideration of the appeal.

The Decision of the Press Ombudsman is therefore upheld.

The Press Ombudsman has decided to partially uphold a complaint made on behalf of Mr Sean Quinn and Quinn Insurance Limited about an article published in 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.

The Sunday Tribune appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.

Decision of the

Press Council

At its meeting on 12 June the Council gave careful consideration to the application to appeal but decided that the submission did not provide adequate grounds either in relation to new evidence or to any error in procedure or in the application of the principles of the code to warrant a full consideration of the appeal.

The Decision of the Press Ombudsman is therefore upheld.