Wednesday 5 December 2012 Dear Mr McIntyre, Thank you for the email of 3 December together with additional information.

I shall take your points in turn:Due Process Appendix C -Clause 12 Please accept my sincere apologies this is a typographic error and should refer to clause 14 which relates to procedures for dealing with complaints in which a breach of the code of conduct has been alleged and not clause 12 which relates to complaints concerning alleged conduct detrimental to the Union. The 10 week deadline therefore applies in respect of clause 12 and is not applicable in this instance. If it is of assistance the timeframe in which this complaint falls is found under Clause 13(xii) that is within six months of the decision of a branch to hear the complaint. In this instance the complaint had been heard at the first opportunity which had been [July 2012] and therefore 6 months following this date is the date upon which the complaint must adjudicated upon otherwise the complaint shall lapse. Whilst this would extend the time in which to hear the complaint raised in August 2012 the Ethics Council considered it appropriate, in the circumstances, that both matters were heard together that is to say by January 2013. Sub Judice I am slightly confused by the terminology you use in this context. The matter is not under judgment. It is not the role of the Ethics Council to adjudicate upon the content of material that is to say whether the material was defamatory or not, but to consider whether there had been a breach of the Unions code of conduct. I do hope this assists in clarifying the Ethic Councils role.

Ethics I reiterate here that it is not the role of the Ethics Council to consider motives or material, rather conduct issues. It is in the interests of the Union and its members that matters are considered in a just and equitable manner and both parties are given the opportunity to put forward their arguments in respect of asserting or defending a complaint. I would add here that steps were taken by the Council to seek to assess the possibility of conciliation. Unfortunately this failed in respect of one of the complainants and therefore you were not approached on this basis. A hearing was in this circumstance considered the appropriate forum. Please be assured that the Rule 24 letter advising you of a complaint is not presented as a fait accompli but serves as notification that affords you the right under Appendix C clause 10 to present a defence to the allegations should you wish to avail yourself of the opportunity to put your case before the Panel. Should you decide not to submit a defence or to attend the Hearing, the matter may be decided upon in your absence. Relevance Activities in relation to blogging would not prohibit the Ethics Councils consideration in respect of conduct of a journalist member of the Union. Compliance Thank you for advising that steps have been taken to reduce the alleged threat to fellow journalists and it would be helpful if you could provide details of the steps taken in any representations made to the Ethics Council. Conclusion In this instance, the time limit has not expired in which to hear a complaint and therefore the complaint does not lapse. You will be given an opportunity to present your case and the Ethics Council will consider any material you wish to present in your defence in respect of the allegations, including any steps you have taken to rectify any alleged harm to fellow journalists. Accordingly it is not appropriate to dismiss the case. I would be grateful if you could now advise your availability for attending a hearing on either Wednesday 16 January 2013 or Wednesday 23 January 2013. Please let us know of your availability for these dates as soon as possible and no later than Friday 14 December. Yours sincerely, Chris Frost NUJ Ethics Council Chair Sarah Kavanagh NUJ Ethics Council Serving Officer