A senior journalist has testified in a High Court defamation case that two articles concerning the Irish Planning Institute (IPI) were based on a confidential report produced by a major consultancy firm.
Mick Clifford told the court he wrote the pieces after hearing on the grapevine
that the institute, which serves as the representative body for planners in Ireland, was experiencing internal issues.
He stated that he subsequently came into possession of a confidential report compiled by EY, a firm he described as one of the top consultants in the country
that conducts consultative work in finance and industry.
Reputation and Public Interest
The legal action was brought by Orla Purcell, the former executive director of the IPI. Ms. Purcell claims that allegations made about her within the EY report were presented as facts in the published articles, resulting in damage to her reputation.
The publication has denied these allegations, maintaining that the articles were a fair and reasonable publication
and were released in the public interest.
Mr. Clifford, a trained civil engineer with 32 years of journalism experience, testified that the story was a natural fit for his expertise in planning and housing. He noted that the housing shortage is currently the greatest issue facing the State.
He characterized the reporting as public interest journalism
, arguing that the role of the media in a democracy is to hold power to account and share information of public interest.
Regarding the plaintiff, Mr. Clifford stated, I have no ill-will towards Ms. Purcell whatsoever
.
The EY Investigation
During questioning, Mr. Clifford addressed specific allegations from the report, including claims that Ms. Purcell altered a press release signed by then-IPI president Conor Norton without his knowledge.
He also addressed allegations that she attempted to create a false narrative regarding membership dissatisfaction with Mr. Norton’s performance, asserting that he simply wrote what was contained in the EY report.
Mr. Clifford described the report as being run by a very reputable firm at arm’s length from the IPI
, which suggested to him that the process was scrupulously fair
.
The court also heard from Simon Rattigan, a former forensic accountant with EY who managed the investigation. Mr. Rattigan stated he was not aware of any attempts by anyone to influence
the report, countering claims by Ms. Purcell that the IPI’s oversight committee had improperly influenced the findings.
Mr. Rattigan further testified that the version of the report seen by Mr. Clifford was a final document rather than a preliminary draft, stating that EY were the only ones who came up with the findings
.
Potential Legal Outcomes
The court’s final determination may depend on whether the judge views the EY report as a sufficiently reliable basis for presenting the allegations as fact.
A possible next step could involve further scrutiny of the communication between the IPI and EY to determine if any internal influence occurred.
The ruling could potentially clarify the boundaries of fair and reasonable publication
when journalists rely on confidential corporate investigations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the source of the information in the articles?
The articles were based on a confidential report compiled by the consultancy firm EY, which had been commissioned to investigate matters at the Irish Planning Institute.
What are the specific allegations made against Orla Purcell?
The allegations included that she altered a press release signed by then-president Conor Norton without his knowledge and attempted to create a false narrative that the membership was unhappy with Mr. Norton’s performance.
Did the EY manager believe the report was influenced by the IPI?
Simon Rattigan, the former EY forensic accountant who managed the investigation, stated he was not aware of any attempts by anyone to influence the report.
Do you believe professional consultancy reports should be treated as absolute fact in public interest journalism?
