Court refuses Gript’s application for stay on publication of Press Council decision

High Court reporters

The High Court has refused to stay an obligation on conservative news website Gript to publish a Press Council of Ireland decision upholding a complaint against the outlet.

Lawyers for Gript Media Ltd, which operates the Gript site, on Wednesday sought the stay as part of judicial review proceedings it seeks to bring against the Press Council.

Gript wants to quash a recent decision of the Press Council, which upheld a Press Ombudsman finding that the outlet breached the council’s code of practice in publishing two articles in October 2024.

The articles relate to a diploma course run for secondary school teachers by Dublin City University (DCU) on Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) and Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE). The articles reported on the purported material contained on the course, according to Gript’s court documents.

DCU subsequently filed a complaint with the Press Ombudsman over the articles. The Press Ombudsman, in a May 1st decision, held that Gript, in publishing the articles, breached the Press Council’s code of practice in three respects – truth and accuracy, fair procedures and honesty, and privacy.

Gript is a member of the Press Council, and is obliged to abide by the council’s code of practice.

Gript unsuccessfully appealed the Press Ombudsman’s decision to the Press Council. In a June 18th decision, the council upheld the finding of the ombudsman.

Arising from this, Gript is obliged to publish the Press Council’s decision on DCU’s complaint on its website, and annotate the offending articles with a reference to the decision.

In the High Court on Wednesday, Conor Rock, barrister for Gript, sought a stay on this obligation, pending the outcome of his client’s judicial review proceedings against the Press Council. Mr Rock made the application on an ex-parte basis, with only Gript represented in court.

Mr Rock noted that the Press Council had published its decision, and the stay application was a question of whether or not his client should be sanctioned – that is, publication of the decision on the Gript website – pending the outcome of the proceeding.

Mr Rock said his client took issue with having to include a specific reference in the articles in question, “effectively saying” that the reports weren’t truthful or accurate, breached privacy, and weren’t honest.

He said this could result in a breakdown in trust between Gript and its readers. Even in the event his client is successful in quashing the Press Council decision, this trust cannot be easily quantified in damage, Mr Rock said.

“It’s that independent trust with the readership that’s at stake here,” he said.

Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty refused the application for a stay.

She noted that Gript agreed that the decision is already available publicly, and in those circumstances, she said she did not believe it was prejudicial to Gript to have to publish it.

She said the matter could be addressed in terms of damages.

The case returns in October.