Perry complaint against the ‘ Mail on Sunday’ is upheld
MINISTER of State John Perry has had a complaint against the Irish Mail on Sunday upheld by the Press Ombudsman.
It concerned an article published on 11 August 2013 and was found to be in breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice which relates to truth and accuracy.
The article reported on two loans made to the Minister for Small Business and was headlined ‘ State bank lent Perry's firm £ 153k .... interestfree.”
It stated that a company owned by Minister Perry was given two interestfree loans from a State controlled bank in March l997.
It also reported that loan documents seen by the newspaper “appeared” to show two interest free loans were made.
The newspaper said that it had tried unsuccessfully to elicit a comment from the Minister before publication, and offered to publish an assertion from the Minister that the loans were interest bearing.
It further offered to amend the proposed wording on receipt of documentary evidence from the complainant to support his assertions that the loans had been interest- bearing and had been repaid.
Minister Perry supplied documentation from the bank which had taken over the State bank that made the original loans.
This documentation provided evidence of loans dating from the date mentioned in the article, and contained figures about the capital sums involved which the newspaper accepted approximated to those in the bank document on which its story had been based.
This documentation also provided evidence of payments of sums for interest on the loans in question and that the loans had been repaid in full.
The publication repeated its offer to publish a statement from the complainant, but did not offer to publish a correction on its own authority.
The Press Ombudsman said he was satisfied that sums were charged and paid as interest on the loans identified in the documents supplied and that all outstanding amounts had been repaid in full.
In the light of the information contained in these documents, and in the spirit of the Code as set out in its Preamble, the limitation of the offer to the publication of a counter- assertion by the complainant was insufficient to resolve the complaint.
On this basis, the complaint that the article breached Principle 1 of the Code of Practice was upheld.
There was insufficient evidence to uphold a complaint under Principle 4 that the material concerned had been published knowingly based on
malicious misrepresentations or unfounded accusations, or that, in making its inquiries, the newspaper had not taken reasonable care in checking facts before publication.