RTÉ IS to be fined €200,000 following a report by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland which found that the Mission to Prey programme was unfair and a breach of Fr Kevin Reynolds’s privacy.
The authority’s statement of findings, as well as an independent report by former BBC Northern Ireland controller Anna Carragher, were published yesterday.
The programme falsely claimed that Fr Reynolds sexually abused a young girl and fathered her child while a missionary in Kenya.
The priest, whose offer prior to broadcast to take a paternity test was not taken up by the programme-makers, received a libel payment believed to be about €1 million from RTÉ.
The BAI’s report found the programme was unfair because it broadcast serious, damaging and untrue allegations about Fr Reynolds.
It found the means employed to make the programme, including secret filming and a doorstep interview, unreasonably encroached upon Fr Reynolds’s privacy.
In addition, it concluded there was a significant failure of editorial and managerial controls within RTÉ that failed to anticipate or control the possibility of these breaches occurring, and that failed to recognise the grave injustice that could be done to Fr Reynolds.
The authority’s report noted that RTÉ had ultimately acknowledged its error and that steps had been taken by the broadcaster to prevent further breaches.
Overall, it found RTÉ had fully co-operated with the investigation. However, it said it was a source of regret that the broadcaster did not choose to waive its claim to privilege in the solicitor/client relationship between itself and its in- house legal staff.
Overall, Ms Carragher’s report was highly critical of the standards of journalism involved in the broadcast.
Among its findings were that:
Interviews with significant sources were not documented and there was an almost complete absence of documentary evidence.
At all stages of the production, note-taking was either non-existent or grossly inadequate.
There was a lack of scrutiny and challenge within the department, which led the production team into a groupthink mentality, where they were convinced the “facts” verified their assumption.
This mentality led them to interpret the offer made by Fr Reynolds to take a paternity test to definitively answer the allegation as “not genuine” and a tactic to derail the programme.
There was an apparent failure to question colleagues who – according to the primary source – were well aware of the allegations. As a result, second-hand repetition of gossip was treated as corroboration.
The report said a final decision to broadcast the programme was taken on Friday, May 20th. Present at the meeting were representatives of RTÉ’s legal department, production team, executive producer, editor of current affairs and director of news.
Ed Mulhall, the director of news, was very clear that the decision to broadcast was “his call” and he accepted full responsibility for doing so, the report says.
“However, it should be noted that the decision was unanimous, with all the production and editorial team in agreement,” the report added.
The BAI said RTÉ submitted a detailed response to Ms Carragher’s investigation, but relevant individuals associated with the programme declined the opportunity to make submissions.
However, these individuals – programme-makers Aoife Kavanagh, Brian Páircéir and Ken O’Shea, as well as managing director of news and current affairs Ed Mulhall – did attend meetings with Ms Carragher as part of her investigation. Producer Mark Lappin, who was outside the country, also responded to written questions.
The four programme-makers later went on to make submissions to the authority following the completion of Ms Carragher’s report.
In its report, the BAI said the four submissions were different, but all included expressions of “deep regret surrounding the circumstances that gave rise to the defamation of Fr Reynolds and the damage caused to him”.
They claimed that all matters that informed the decision-making in relation to the programme were not given appropriate weight by the investigating officer.
In addition, they claimed that the unauthorised leaking and publication of documentation had prejudiced their rights and seriously undermined the entire process, thereby damaging them.
The authority in its determination said it regretted that information regarding the process entered the public domain, but said it was satisfied there was no prejudice to anybody concerned.
