The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold in part a complaint that sundayworld.com breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice. She has insufficient evidence with which to reach a decision on another part of the complaint and has not upheld other parts of the complaint.
This article was published online by sundayworld.com in April 2025. It is about a police investigation into the death of a baby and is largely based on information provided by Garda sources. It stated that Gardaí had spoken to a number of people including the mother, who is a minor, of the baby. It stated that the baby had died after she gave birth. It stated that Gardaí were trying to establish if the death was accidental or deliberate.
The woman, who is a close relation of the mother of the baby, complained under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice that it was misleading to state that the baby was born and “then died”. She said the circumstances were that this was a “lone stillbirth”.
The publication stated that while Garda investigations were ongoing, “at this stage the cause and/or timing of the death of the baby has not been established”. It said it was therefore not in a position “to conclusively state the position pending further official information”.
Decision – Complaint Upheld
The Press Ombudsman finds that in circumstances in which the publication admits that “the cause and/or timing of the death of the baby” had not been established, it was misleading to state that the mother had given birth and that the baby had then died. She finds that putting it in this way rules out the possibility that this may have been a “lone stillbirth”. She finds that this is a breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
Other Parts of the Complaint
Under Principle 1 of the Code the woman complained that Gardaí had not spoken to the mother of the baby as asserted in the article.
The woman also described as a “complete travesty” the article’s assertion that Gardaí were trying to establish if the death was accidental or deliberate.
Under Principle 2 of the Code she said that the Gardaí had found the facts but that information they had provided to the publication “has not been entirely factual”. She referred to the matters she had raised in her complaint under Principle 1.
Under Principle 5 of the Code she said that whereas the Code of Practice required sympathy and discretion to be shown by publications in seeking information in situations of personal grief or shock, and for the feelings of grieving families to be taken into account, the article had been “at the complete expense of the feelings of the extremely vulnerable grieving parties involved”.
Under Principle 9 of the Code she said the Code stated that the rights of children to education must be preserved, and that in this case the mother of the baby had been unable to return to school because of the “inappropriate and misleading” coverage of her situation.
In relation to Principle 1, the publication responded that it understood that the position in relation to Gardaí having spoken to the mother was correct at the date the article was published.
It asserted that while it appreciated that the statement that Gardaí were trying to establish if the death was an accident or deliberate was “an incredibly sensitive allegation for your family” the investigation was a matter of public interest. It added that no one had been identified.
In relation to Principle 2 it said it did not agree that the article had mixed fact and comment.
In relation to Principle 5 it stated that it had not contacted the family during a difficult time “for obvious reasons” and that it had not identified the family or individuals. In relation to Principle 9 it stated that it did not think the Principle was relevant to the complaint.
Decision on Other Parts of the Complaint
On Principle 1 the Press Ombudsman finds that she has insufficient evidence to establish whether or not it was true that Gardaí had spoken to the mother.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the subject matter of the article is, as asserted by the publication, a matter of public interest. She finds that the statement that Gardaí were trying to establish if the death was accidental or deliberate is relevant to this interest. She finds this is not a breach of Principle 1.
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 complainant asserts that while the Gardaí knew the facts, they not been “entirely factual” in the information
they provided to the publication. 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.
In relation to Principle 5, the Press Ombudsman finds that the publication did not name the family or individuals and that the publication is entitled to state that publishing the story is in the public interest given that the matter is the subject of a Garda investigation.
On Principle 9 the Press Ombudsman finds it surprising that the publication asserts that it does not believe the Principle is relevant to the complaint. The Principle applies to all coverage of children when it states that the press shall take particular care when presenting information or comment about a child under the age of 18. It also requires publications to have regard for the vulnerability of children.
The complainant stated that the article had been harmful for the child who is the mother of the baby and that she was unable to return to school as a result of “sensational” media coverage. The Press Ombudsman is unable to make a finding that this article contributed to the educational disruption and detriment described by the complainant.
The decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.