PRESS OMBUDSMAN Dr John Horgan has published his first judgment, in a complaint made by independent TD Tony Gregory against the Evening Herald.
The ombudsman found in favour of Mr Gregory, who had alleged a breach of privacy by the newspaper after a journalist writing about his illness called to his home last January and “doorstepped” his brother.
As required under the new code of practice adopted last year by newspapers, a notice of the decision was carried in a prominent position in Saturday’s edition of the Herald. The newspaper had appealed Dr Horgan’s judgment to the Press Council, but last month it upheld the original decision.
Mr Gregory complained that the journalist’s visit and the article were intrusions into his privacy at a time of distress and shock.
The Herald responded that there was no breach of the code of practice because the subject matter of the article was in the public domain and was both of interest to the public and in the public interest. It was “entitled, if not obligated,” to follow up on a story which concerned the health of a high profile, elected public representative and, in such a situation, it was legitimate for a journalist to be able to attempt to make contact with family members.
In his adjudication, Dr Horgan said that although any individual could waive the right to privacy, “courtesy should not be mistaken for consent”. Mr Gregory’s illness was public knowledge since before Christmas 2007 and further details of his medical condition might have been of interest to his constituents. However, the test was not whether the matter was of interest to the public, but whether it was in the public interest.
“This is a crucial distinction in a case in which a breach of privacy is involved.”
Dr Horgan said: “In the circumstances, there would need to be clear evidence that the acquisition and publication of information involving a breach of privacy is in the public interest, in order to satisfy the requirement of the Code of Practice. The article complained of failed to meet this criterion”.
In upholding his decision, the Press Council concluded that the practice of so-called “door-stepping”, especially when it involved a person’s private home, required a high level of justification.
