The Press Ombudsman has decided that she had insufficient information to make a finding on one part, and that the Sunday World took sufficient remedial action to resolve the other part, in relation to a complaint from a woman about a report published in late 2024. The report was about the death of an elderly man in a house fire at his rural home. The complainant, the late man’s daughter, stated that the publication had breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice.
She said the article had inaccurately stated that Gardaí and emergency services personnel had discovered her father’s remains, and that this “credits strangers” with having found her father’s remains, when in fact she was the person who found him and had to alert the emergency services, family and friends. She said she had to “dispel the false narrative” disseminated by the publication and that this had caused a great deal of distress.
She said that her full address as well as her late father’s address were included in the article. She said she had authorised the undertaker to provide her address to two websites but had not anticipated it would be published in a national newspaper. She said this had compromised her privacy and security.
The complainant requested that the publication remove the article and make a written apology to her.
In response to the complainant’s correspondence with it, prior to her making a formal complaint to the Press Ombudsman, the Sunday World stated that the article had been published “in good faith based on the information available to it at the time, including information on publicly available websites”. It stated that it had, “as a gesture of good faith”, removed from the online article the references to the discovery of her father’s remains, and to the complainant’s and her late father’s addresses.
The complainant described this response as “rude, insensitive and dismissive”. She said it was not acceptable for it “to copy misinformation from other news sources without checking that the facts were correct”.
In response to the formal complaint, the publication said it had not breached the Code of Practice. It said it had based the article on information that was already in the public domain, and on its own investigations. It said it did not accept the complainant’s interpretation of the statement about the discovery of her father’s remains but had removed it “as a gesture of goodwill”. It said that it had responded compassionately when the woman had first complained to it and had amended the article to reflect her concerns.
Decision
In relation to Principle 1 of the Code, the Press Ombudsman finds that she has insufficient information with which to establish the facts surrounding the discovery of the late man’s body. However, she considers that it was appropriate for the publication to remove its reference to the matter once the woman submitted a complaint stating that the information was inaccurate.
In relation to Principle 5 of the Code, the Press Ombudsman appreciates that the complainant was deeply upset by the publication of her full address and that of her late father in a national newspaper. However, as asserted by the publication, this information had already been published on websites announcing her father’s death and funeral arrangements and was therefore in the public domain. The Press Ombudsman finds that by deleting these details online once it was made aware that the woman objected to their publication, the Sunday World took sufficient remedial action to resolve this part of her complaint.
8 April 2025