A N T H O N Y

M C I N T Y R E

8th April 2013 Re: NUJ Rule 24 Complaint BY EMAIL (READ RECEIPT REQUESTED) AND REGISTERED POST Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ General Secretary National Union of Journalists Headland House 308 Grays Inn Road London WC1X 8DP

Dear Ms. Stanistreet, Please be advised that, pursuant to Appendix C (15), I seek to appeal the 25 March, 2013 decision of the Ethics Council. Furthermore, under Rule 28 and Appendix B (5) and (6), I wish to clarify that my appeal is not restricted to the penalties imposed, and is a request for a new trial. This appeal will be based on the following grounds: 1) The decision of the NUJ Ethics Council of 25th March 2013 (the Decision) should be quashed as the subcommittee hearing of the Ethics Council held on Wednesday 23 January 2013 was improperly constituted and was held in violation of my right to due process and the principles of natural justice as set out at Appendix C (14)(i) of the NUJ Rules (2011): (i) In my Response to the Rule 24 Complaint, I raised due process concerns and set forth that the Ethics Council must establish that proper procedures have been followed before setting the matter down for a hearing in accordance with the NUJ Rules (2011); The Decision fails to address my complaint that the hearing of 23rd January 2013 not been properly constituted; The Morris complaint filed directly with the Ethics Council was in contravention of the procedures set forth at Appendix C (2) and (3); The Ethics Council improperly conflated both complaints; The Ethics Council subcommittee hearing was not in compliance with Rule 24 (b) and Appendix C (14)(i) as the complaints had not been filed in accordance with the procedure and time constraints laid down in Appendix C; When I presented for the hearing with my solicitor on 23rd January 2013 the Ethics Council falsely informed me that the hearing was not proceeding as a formal hearing under Appendix C (14)(iv), but rather was an exploratory committee meeting for the purposes of conciliation under Appendix C (14)(ii); The Ethics Council failed engage me in any Appendix C (14)(iv) conciliation process; The Ethics Council denied my right to representation under Appendix C (14)(ix) by refusing to allow my solicitor to provide representation on my behalf in my presence. The Ethics Council informed me that either my solicitor could attend the meeting, or I could attend, but not both of us simultaneously.

(ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

(vi)

(vii) (viii)

ANTHONY MCINTYRE

2) The Decision should be quashed as irrational and because the conclusions reached were inconsistent, and contrary to the principles of natural justice: (i) The Rule 24 complaints alleged that I had breached clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the NUJ Code of Conduct which require that a journalist (2) Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed accurate and fair (3) Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies (4) Differentiates between fact and opinion. Pursuant to the sub judice concerns which I raised in my Response to the Rule 24 Complaint, the Ethics Council in its Decision confirmed that it would be determining the complaints in respect of alleged breach of the unions Code of Conduct only and not the nature of the material . This is nonsensical, as the Ethics Council clearly had to deliberate upon the material published in order to determine if a breach of clauses 2, 3, and/or 4 had occurred; The Ethics Council declined to make a finding on breach of Clause 4 due to the difficulty experienced in differentiating between fact and opinion in reaching a conclusion concerning the publication; Notwithstanding the fact that the Ethics Council was incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion in the impugned publication, it then proceeded to uphold both complaints concerning breaches of clauses 2 and 3 of the Code of Conduct. This means that the Ethics Council has determined that the publication contained factual inaccuracies and/or untruths, that these inaccuracies were harmful and that I then failed to correct any such inaccuracies; The Decision of the Ethics Council fails to elicit which, if any, facts were inaccurate or how such inaccuracies were harmful; The Ethics Council Decision failed to explain what other efforts I could have taken to correct any allegedly harmful inaccuracies, given that I had removed the impugned material following representations from NUJ officials; The Decision fails to address the fact that the offending material was not publicly available at the time the complaints were filed.

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v) (vi)

(vii)

3) The Decision should be rendered invalid and contrary to the principles of natural justice for failure to have regard to representations made in my Response to the Rule 24 Complaint: (i) (ii) (iii) The Decision failed to address any of the due process concerns which I raised regarding the constitutionality of the complaints and the Appendix C hearing; The Ethics Council made no finding on the counter-complaints which I raised regarding the ethics violations of the complainants; The Ethics Council gave no consideration to my argument that I was in compliance with my ethical obligations in that the impugned material had been removed after unofficial representations had been made to me by NUJ officials; The Decision failed to address my argument that I was not the author of the material, and that it was published in my capacity as a blog publisher, not as a journalist, such that the Code of Conduct was inapplicable in this regard; Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the Ethics Council gave no consideration to Clause 1 of the Code of Conduct, which requires that a journalist At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.

(iv)

(v)

ANTHONY MCINTYRE

This appeal is being filed within 21 days of the date of the Decision and it timely under the terms of Appendix C (15) (x) (xii). I request that a new trial be heard under Rule 28 and Appendix B (5) and (6). A more detailed written statement will follow in due course.

Respectfully yours,

Anthony McIntyre NUJ Member, Belfast and District Branch

cc: Chris Frost, Chair of NUJ Ethics Council Sarah Kavanagh, Ethics Council Servicing Officer via email