NUJ APPEALS TRIBUNAL : ANTHONY MC I NTYRE APPEAL, JULY 2013

WITNESS STATEMENT FROM TIM GOPSILL

Over the years as an NUJ official I was at times servicing officer of both the Ethics Council and the Appeals Tribunal. (Anthony McIntyre himself was of course a member of the Ethics Council in the late 2000s; I dont know the dates and no longer have the paperwork. Im also sorry I cant be present to be examined on this statement but Im overseas.) I would like to try to put this case in context, in two respects. First, the custom and practice in Code of Conduct cases. Penalties are not traditionally severe, the emphasis being on the educational rather than the retributive use of the Code. To this day no member has been expelled following a complaint to the Ethics Council. This leaves suspension from the union as the most severe penalty that has been used, which logically would apply in only the most egregious cases. I have not seen all the documentation in this case, but I understand that the blog post at issue was removed; there was a delay, as I understand it, due to practical matters, but the material was taken down. The internet is of course a tricky area but nonetheless the taking down of material is generally regarded as an ameliorative measure if not a legal defence in cases where the offending material has been seen before it was posted. For the Ethics Council it might have been a case where the requirement to attempt conciliation would have been appropriate, but this leads to the second factors I want to raise: Northern Ireland. I am sure it is appreciated how sensitive security-related matters can be for journalists. Again, I have not seen the offending material, but I do know from experience that the connotations of negative commentary in a society where violence is just around the corner can be deadly serious. (When I edited the Journalist I received three libel actions from there, over comments in features or letters that may have been tolerable in Great Britain; let me add that it is welcome that this case has been pursued through the union rather than the courts.) I might surmise that this is the reason that conciliation was not possible in this case. It makes matters difficult but it does not alter the basic principles of the NUJs practice on ethics. The councils job is to promote high standards, among which is the Codes requirement to correct harmful inaccuracies. It seems to me that a step at least in this direction was taken in this case; possibly enough for conciliation to follow. The tribunal may not succeed in this, but even then I cannot myself see how the conduct complained of in this case would have warranted the most severe penalty the union customarily imposes for breach of the code.