On 7 October 2025 the Press Ombudsman upheld in part a complaint from a woman that irishmirror.ie breached Principle 1 of the Press Council’s Code of Practice. She found that she had insufficient evidence to make a finding in relation to other parts of the woman’s complaint and did not uphold other parts of the complaint.
The article is about a Garda investigation into the death of a baby and is largely based on information from Garda sources. The mother of the baby is a minor. The complainant is one of her close relations.
Under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice the complainant said that in circumstances of stillbirth it was misleading to state that the baby had been born and “then died”.
The complainant noted that the publication had failed to respond to her formal complaint about the article.
In responding to the Office of the Press Ombudsman about the complaint, the publication apologised for failing to respond to the original complaint made to the editor. It said this was an oversight.
The publication stood over its assertion that the article was factually correct (regarding the death of the baby) and said that “in the absence of any evidence to the contrary” the woman’s complaint in this regard should be rejected.
Decision – Complaint Upheld
The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold the woman’s complaint that Principle 1 of the Code was breached in relation to the article’s claim that the mother “gave birth …” and the baby “…then died”. The woman insists that this was a stillbirth.
The publication stands over its claim in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. The question of whether the baby was born alive or not is very significant in the context of this case, and the Press Ombudsman finds that in a situation where it is not established whether this was a stillbirth or a death after birth, it was misleading to present one version of what might have happened as a fact.
Other Parts of the Complaint not Upheld
The woman also complained under Principle 1 that contrary to a statement in the article, at the time of publication the Gardaí had not spoken to either of the young parents involved.
Under Principle 2 she said that while the facts of the case had been found by the Gardaí, the information they provided had not been “entirely factual”.
Under Principle 5 she said that the headline had been “at the complete expense of the feelings of the extremely vulnerable grieving parties”.
Under Principle 9 she said that whereas the Code of Practice protected the right to education of vulnerable children, the child in this case had been unable to resume her studies at school because of “sensational media coverage” of her private situation.
On Principle 1 the publication asserted that in circumstances in which the complainant did not dispute that the minors involved in this case were interviewed by the Gardaí, her complaint was based only on a question of the timeline involved. It said that even if she were correct about this, which the publication did not accept, it could not be considered a “significant inaccuracy”.
On Principle 2 it said that it believed the article was factually correct and that it did not contain any “comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports”.
On Principle 5 it said it had not approached the family in advance of publication and had not identified the family in the article. It described the headline as “measured and factual”.
On Principle 9 it said the publication had not approached the family, “including the children involved”, and did not identify the family in the article. It said the topic addressed by the article was one of public interest involving a Garda investigation. It said the article was measured and factual.
Decision on Other Parts of the Complaint
In relation to the publication’s claim that Gardaí had spoken with the mother of the baby, and the complainant’s rebuttal of this, the Press Ombudsman finds that the timeline is a matter of significance but that she has insufficient evidence with which to decide to whom the Gardaí had spoken at any particular stage of its investigation.
Principle 2 requires that “comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they are fact”. The Press Ombudsman notes that the article makes clear that the Gardaí are the primary source for the material published. She notes that the complainant asserts that the Gardaí had not been “entirely factual” in the information they provided. The Press Ombudsman finds that this is a statement about the behaviour of the Gardaí and is a matter for them rather than for the publication. She does not find that Principle 2 was breached.
The headline of the article is clearly based on information provided to the publication by Gardaí. In refuting the complaint that it presents a breach of privacy under Principle 5, the publication asserts that it did not approach the family and did not identify the family. The headline states that the family of the mother of the baby did not know she was pregnant. The complainant states that the child kept her pregnancy secret, so the factual basis of the headline is not disputed. The Press Ombudsman does not find that the article breached Principle 5.
Principle 9 requires publications to give particular consideration to the circumstances which make a story one of public interest when a child is involved. The Press Ombudsman acknowledges that extensive media coverage of this tragedy must have been painful for the family including and in particular the child who gave birth. However, because she has insufficient evidence, the Press Ombudsman is unable to make a finding that this article contributed to the educational disruption and detriment described by the complainant.