The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint that an article published by
Independent.ie in March 2025 breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Press Council’s Code
of Practice. She has not upheld a complaint that the article breached a number of other Principles of
the Code.
The article is about a Garda investigation into circumstances surrounding the death of a baby. The
complainant is a close relation of the teenage mother of the baby. The complained of article is an
amended version of an earlier article. The publication made changes after the woman complained
about the original article. The complainant stated that she was still dissatisfied with the amended
article.
She said that the amended article breached Principle 1 of the Code of Practice because it continued
to say that the baby’s parents both lived at the property where the baby died when she had already
told the publication that this was untrue.
The publication stated that as a gesture of good faith it had removed the reference to the place of
residence of the parents of the baby.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman notes that the publication did not in fact remove the reference to where the
parents of the baby lived, despite the complainant’s assertion that the information given was
untrue, and its own assurance that it had removed it. The Press Ombudsman finds that this is a
significant inaccuracy and breaches Principle 1 of the Code.
Other parts of the complaint were not upheld
The Press Ombudsman notes that the woman complained that the publication of the statement
about “family vulnerabilities” breached Principles 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 4
(Respect for Rights), Principle 8 (Prejudice) and Principle 9 (Children).
She stated that the article continued, despite her earlier complaint, to say that sources had told it of
“vulnerabilities within the family unit”. She said this breached “Principles 2, and/or 4, and/or 8,
and/or 9 with respect to publishing comment as fact, our good name within the community,
including family status prejudice arising from derogatory statements about our family unit and
misrepresentation/misrepresentation of information concerning a child/children”.
The publication said that its reference to vulnerabilities was not intended to suggest anything
derogatory but was factual and relevant in explaining a complex tragedy and garda investigation.
The publication said it was also relevant that it did not identify anybody.
The complainant asserted that comment was presented as fact, in breach of Principle 2. However,
the Press Ombudsman finds that the publication attributed the statement about vulnerabilities to a
source rather than asserting it as fact. Principle 2 was therefore not breached.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the complainant refers briefly to possible breaches of Principles 4,
8 and 9 of the Code of Practice, but that she fails to develop arguments or present evidence to
substantiate her complaints in respect of these Principles. The Press Ombudsman does not
therefore uphold the complaints under these Principles.