The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold in part a complaint that Independent.ie
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 by Independent.ie 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.