Press Council member quits over judgment policy

FORMER CHAIRMAN of the Labour Court, John M Horgan, has resigned his position on the Press Council of Ireland following its decision not to publish dissenting opinions with its judgments.

Mr Horgan said that the council would do nothing to establish its credibility by “holding up a facade of unanimity where such may not exist”.

“This was a unique opportunity to demonstrate exemplary openness and transparency,” he writes in an opinion article published in today’s Irish Times.

“The Press Council, above all, should be the last one to suppress minority or dissenting opinions for the sake of collegiality.”

The 14-member council, established in 2007, takes decisions on cases of significance or complexity about the press referred to it by the Press Ombudsman, Prof John Horgan. Its hearings are held in private, and it decides on each case by interpreting the press code of conduct signed up to by newspapers in 2007. Once it reaches a decision, its judgment on each complaint is published.

Mr Horgan wanted the council to publish any dissenting opinion along with every judgment. He said the council would need to build up a body of case law on which the industry and public could rely. “It would be greatly fortified in developing its jurisprudence if the members were permitted to express alternative judgments while acknowledging that the majority determines the case,” he said.

Mr Horgan said he was also concerned with the “excessive confidentiality” with which the Ombudsman, Prof Horgan, and Press Council were proposing to conduct their business.

“It seemed to me that the restrictions that were being placed on the reporting of the business of the Press Council came close to collusion in withholding information from the public,” he said.

Tom Mitchell, chairman of the Press Council, said Mr Horgan and the council’s other members had had a very fundamental and honest difference of opinion about how the council could most effectively fulfil its mission.

“The rest of the council felt it was perfectly appropriate to record in the minutes an expression of dissent, but they did not feel it should be part of the final judgment,” Mr Mitchell said.

He said the council had a responsibility to deliver a clear verdict, and publishing dissenting opinion would detract from the impact of the judgment and give a confused signal.

He added that though the work of the council was not covered under the Freedom of Information Act, minutes of its meetings would be accessible to the public.

Ombudsman Prof Horgan said a major part of the work of his office involved attempts to secure agreement between complainants and newspapers through conciliation.

“This is not a process that can be carried out effectively in public,” he said.

He said that an appropriate level of confidentiality during any appeal process was important to avoid unfairness.

“All my decisions are being published in full on our website as soon as the process, including any appeal, has been concluded. Decisions on appeals are published in the same way by the council,” he said.

Why I was forced to quit: John Horgan – Opinion: page 15