You may have seen reporting on a recent decision of the Press Council of Ireland concerning Gript. As the matter is now public, we think it is important to briefly explain the context of this decision and why we are taking legal action.
Gript has filed for judicial review against the Press Council’s ruling. It is not a step we wanted to take. It is, however, a step we believe is necessary – both because we believe the case is in the public interest, and because we have a right to defend our good name and the accuracy of our journalism from decisions we believe to be procedurally flawed.
If you would like to support our work, please consider taking out a subscription or making a donation at the link attached.
The Press Council plays an important role in Irish media. A functioning, fair, and impartial press complaints system serves the public by resolving disputes without recourse to lengthy or expensive litigation. But to serve that role credibly, the Council must apply its standards consistently, operate transparently, and justify its decisions with clarity. Our concern is not simply that a decision has gone against us. It is that we believe the system of adjudication itself is falling short of the standards the public, the member publications of the Press Council, and those making complaints through the Press Council, have a right to expect.
This is not the first Press Council decision we have considered challenging through the courts. The first such case arose when we discovered, after a ruling against us, that the complainant was personally known to the Press Ombudsman. They had exchanged messages on social media, and there is at least one photo that appears to show them socialising together. We appealed the matter internally. The Press Council responded that while the Ombudsman may recuse themselves in such a case, they are not required to do so, and that no appeal was allowed if the Ombudsman chose not to exercise that ability.
In short, there appears to be no functioning conflict of interest mechanism at the heart of what is now being treated as a regulatory body.
We considered doing so again in a second case, but did not proceed, having been told plainly that the Press Council could struggle financially if it were to lose a judicial review in the High Court. That struck us as a real concern. We are a small organisation, and we fully understand the risk posed by legal proceedings of this kind. It is something we ourselves have had to weigh very carefully. Our willingness now to take on that risk reflects the extent of our concern.
This time we felt we had no choice but to move forward through the courts.
Before the Council issued its most recent ruling, we informed them in writing that we would seek an injunction to block publication unless they agreed to a delay, so that the matter could be resolved properly. When they failed to reply within the timeframe we had requested, we chose not to seek that injunction, and instead gave them more time to consider. That courtesy was not returned when, following a brief correspondence between our respective legal teams, the Press Council moved to publish and, in so doing, made the matter public.
If we fail in our duties as a publication, it is entirely appropriate for the Ombudsman or the Press Council to find against us. We accept that. But decisions must be reasoned, accountable, and consistent with fair procedure.
We are not alone in that concern. It has now been reported that another publication is preparing to bring a separate judicial review against the Press Council, citing its failure to explain how its decisions are reached. Whilst we cannot speak to the specifics of that case we can say that that claim reflects our own experience.
While we cannot go into the full details of the submission we made to the Press Council in our most recent appeal, as the process is confidential, I can tell you that our appeal document ran to roughly 20 pages in length. It raised multiple procedural issues, questions about the application of the code, and specific concerns with the reasoning and factual basis of the Ombudsman’s decision.
In response, we received the following text, in full:
“The Press Council decided that the Gript.ie did not show that the Press Ombudsman had erred in her application of Principle 1 of the Code in respect of the publication’s obligation to show that it had striven for truth and accuracy.
The Press Council decided that the Press Ombudsman had not erred in her application of Principle 3 of the Code in as much as ultimate responsibility for publication of material obtained by subterfuge rests with the publication, and that publication of the information was not justified in the public interest.
The Press Council decided that the Press Ombudsman had not erred in her application of Principle 5 of the Code in regard to her finding on a breach of privacy, and that publication of the information was not justified in the public interest.”
No explanation of what points we raised. No reference to the arguments we made. No engagement with the material. No indication of how the Council came to its conclusion, what was considered, or why our concerns were dismissed.
This lack of explanation makes other procedural issues, such as the absence of clear conflict of interest guiderails, more pressing.
The article at the centre of this case concerned the education system, specifically the kinds of materials and conversations that take place among academics and professionals involved in shaping what children are taught. These are issues of intense public interest. They touch directly on fundamental questions about the role of the state and its agencies in the raising of children, the training and worldview of teachers, and the constitutional right of parents to be the primary educators of their children.
The public has a right to know how such matters are discussed and decided, particularly when those discussions are held out of public view.
We have always respected the idea of the Press Council. We continue to. We believe that some form of non-judicial resolution mechanism can be valuable if it is impartial, professional, and restrained. We do not view this legal action as punitive. We view it as corrective. We believe that a stronger, more rigorous Press Council, one which applies its own code transparently and consistently, is in the public interest. We believe the public is best served by a regulatory body that is seen to operate with independence, fairness, and the willingness to give clear reasons for its judgments.
This concern is not academic. At a recent Oireachtas hearing, Senator Malcolm Byrne questioned publicly why Gript was permitted to be a member of the Press Council, citing its code on prejudice. In response, Press Ombudsman Susan McKay stated that organisations which do not share the Press Council’s values will not be able to remain members. As the only conservative publication which is a member of the Press Council, such a statement concerns us as it is unclear to us whether it refers to shared values such as a commitment to strive for accuracy or to maintain journalistic standards, or if it refers to the broader values personally held by individuals involved.
This legal action was not inevitable. It is not something we wanted. But we believe it is necessary because it is in the public interest for regulatory systems to be fair, impartial, and open to scrutiny.
We will keep you informed as the case progresses. As always, thank you for your support.
We’ve been asked by many readers about how to support our work: we would be very grateful if you would consider taking out a subscription or making a donation at the link attached.