SINN Féin Councillor Sheamus Greene has had his complaint against The Impartial Reporter dismissed by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which ruled that the articles in question did not breach the Editors’ Code of Practice. Greene had alleged that the newspaper’s coverage misrepresented his actions and that it had broken the law by publishing personal data, claims that IPSO found to be entirely unsubstantiated.

The complaints related to several pieces published by The Impartial Reporter, including the articles “Gravy Train” and “‘The Very Hungry Councillors’” from April 18, 2024, both of which were also shared online and through the newspaper’s social media channels. Greene’s key grievance focused on how these reports portrayed him in the context of a Council vote that led to the reinstatement of free hot meals for Councillors at the expense of local ratepayers. The reports were highly critical of the Council’s decision and the secrecy surrounding it, prompting Greene to file a formal complaint with IPSO.

A central component of Councillor Greene’s complaint was his assertion that The Impartial Reporter had broken the law by publishing his personal data. Specifically, Greene claimed that the articles violated Clause 9 of the Editors’ Code, which relates to the reporting of crime, and accused the newspaper of publishing private information without his consent. He argued that this amounted to a breach of privacy and that the newspaper’s actions were illegal.

However, after a detailed review, IPSO found no merit in these allegations. The regulator stated that Clause 9 is intended to protect the friends and family of individuals accused or convicted of crimes, a situation that did not apply to Greene. Furthermore, IPSO found that no personal data had been unlawfully published and dismissed the claim that the newspaper had broken the law.

IPSO’s decision makes it clear that the newspaper had acted within its rights and adhered to both journalistic and legal standards. This aspect of Greene’s complaint was found to be entirely unfounded, and IPSO concluded that there were no grounds for further investigation into these claims.

Greene also claimed that the articles breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code. He argued that the reports gave a misleading impression that he had engaged in illegal or unethical behaviour.

The articles had criticised the Council’s decision to reinstate free meals for Councillors and the secrecy surrounding the vote, and Greene felt that the coverage implied wrongdoing on his part.

In its ruling, IPSO acknowledged that newspapers are entitled to express opinions and be critical of public bodies, provided they do not publish inaccurate or misleading information. IPSO emphasised that the articles did not allege any illegal activity on Greene’s part. Instead, they scrutinised the policy itself and the decision to hold the vote in secret.

IPSO noted that criticism of Council decisions, including the provision of meals funded by public money, fell well within the remit of the press and did not constitute a breach of Clause 1.

The press regulator found that the articles reported fairly on a matter of public interest and did not imply that Greene or any other Councillor had broken the law. The criticism, it ruled, was directed at the process and policy, not at individuals’ conduct.

As such, IPSO determined that the articles were not inaccurate or misleading, and there was no basis for further investigation under Clause 1.

Concerns Councillor Greene also raised concerns under Clause 2 (Privacy), arguing that the articles breached his right to privacy by reporting on his food choices during the Council meetings. Greene contended that disclosing what he ate during the publicly funded meals was an intrusion into his personal life.

However, IPSO rejected this complaint, explaining that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to publicly funded activities by elected officials.

The regulator pointed out that the meals in question were paid for by ratepayers, and the reporting was focused on the expenditure of public funds, not Greene’s private life.

As the information was tied to Greene’s role as a public official and the context was a Council meeting, IPSO found no grounds to support a breach of Clause 2.

The decision reinforced the notion that public officials, particularly in their professional capacities, have a lower expectation of privacy than private citizens, especially in matters of public expenditure. IPSO concluded that the article’s reference to Greene’s meal choices did not violate his privacy.

In addition to his concerns over accuracy and privacy, Greene claimed that the articles amounted to harassment under Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code, which was included in the Code following Princess Diana’s death in 1997. He argued that he had been singled out for mockery and that the portrayal of him as “the very hungry caterpillar” was demeaning.

IPSO, however, noted that Clause 3 generally relates to the behaviour of journalists when gathering news, particularly when it comes to persistent pursuit or intimidation. The regulator found that Greene’s complaint did not relate to any such conduct by the journalists involved.

Instead, it was focused on the tone of the articles.

As a result, IPSO determined that there was no evidence to support a breach of Clause 3 and dismissed this aspect of the complaint.

The regulator also noted that newspapers have editorial discretion to use humour or satire, provided that it does not cross the line into inaccuracy or defamation. In this case, IPSO found that The Impartial Reporter had not engaged in harassment or improper conduct in its reporting of the issue.

IPSO’s ruling firmly rejected all aspects of Councillor Sheamus Greene’s complaint against *The Impartial Reporter*. The regulator found that there was no breach of accuracy, privacy, or harassment guidelines, and most notably, Greene’s claim that the newspaper had broken the law by publishing his personal data was proven to be completely untrue.

 The articles, which had drawn attention to the provision of free meals for Councillors at public expense, were found to be a legitimate exercise of press freedom and public accountability.

IPSO’s decision reinforces the role of the press in scrutinising public officials and holding them to account, while adhering to ethical journalism standards. Greene requested a review of IPSO’s decision by its Complaints Committee, but it was not found in his favour.

Councillor Greene was contacted for comment following the decision. He said: “Every councillor in the North of Ireland is entitled to £13.50 for subsistence if away from home for four hours or more. FODC food prevision costs far less than that. But why state facts when you can sensationalise stories?”