The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint that a court report published in the Connacht Tribune in May 2025 breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights), Principle 5 (Privacy), Principle 7 (Court Reporting) and Principle 9 (Children). The complainant is the person referred to in the headline of the article which reads: “Mum escapes conviction for daughter’s school absence”.
On Principle 1 the complainant said the article inaccurately claimed the girl’s parents had failed to send her to school, failed to complete paperwork, and refused meetings. She said the article wrongly claimed that she had not engaged with Tusla and the school. She said that in the article her professional role and address were given incorrectly, as was her daughter’s age.
On Principle 4 she said the headline implied negligence where none was found and wrongly portrayed her as neglectful.
On Principle 5 she said the article included her daughter’s name and other sensitive information “despite the hearing being held in closed court”. She said it included details that were “explicitly excluded from the public record” to protect her daughter, and that the article breached her daughter’s right to privacy.
On Principle 7 she said this was “a closed family court hearing” and that the publication had created a one-sided and inaccurate representation of the proceedings and that it had published restricted material.
On Principle 9 she said the publication had failed in its duty to safeguard a child by publishing her name and other details. She said this was “potentially dangerous” and in breach of her “right to be shielded from public exposure”.
The publication said it felt sorry for the pain the article had caused the complainant, but that it reported on such cases “all of the time, without fear or favour”. It said that this was a court report and that it had only reported what was said in open court. It said it had not included any aspects of the case that had been heard “in camera”. It quoted evidence accepted by the judge which, it said, refuted claims of inaccuracy made by the complainant. It said the headline fairly reflected the judge’s statement about the case.
The publication noted that the judge had made no order prohibiting publication of names and other information included in the report and nor had the complainant’s solicitor applied for this material not to be published, though it was open to them to do so. It said it had complied fully with the reporting restrictions which were put in place while certain evidence was given. It said it had taken other information it published from court documents and evidence from the court hearing.
The publication said it had considered the content of the case and believed it was worthy of publishing. It noted that Tusla had decided to pursue the case in open court, indicating that “they deemed it important in the public interest to do so”.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold the complaint on any of the grounds cited.
On Principle 1, she finds that this is a court report and as such the publication is entitled to report any evidence heard in open court. She finds no grounds for doubting the accuracy of the report. She finds that the publication was entitled to rely on the accuracy of information provided in court documents.
On Principle 4, she accepts that the headline fairly summarizes the judge’s ruling, and that the subheading and the opening paragraph both refer to the family circumstances which led the judge not to convict the complainant.
On Principle 5, she accepts the publication’s point that the complainant had the opportunity to seek for her name and the name of her daughter to be redacted but that she did not avail of this. There was no restriction in place in this regard and the publication was therefore entitled to publish the names which were heard in open court.
On Principle 7, she notes that this was not a closed family court hearing, but a district court hearing held in open court. The article states that the judge agreed to hear certain evidence “in camera” without the public present, and that this part of the proceedings was subject to reporting restrictions. The publication did not breach the restrictions, and was entitled to report on the judge’s findings, which took account of what he had heard “in camera”.
On Principle 9, the Press Ombudsman notes again that it was open to the complainant to seek for her daughter’s name and other identifying details to be withheld during the hearing, but that she did not do this. As there was no restriction in place, the publication was entitled to publish the information.
29 July 2025