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.
The article was published 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 the mother gave birth. It noted that two of the people Gardai had spoken to were minors. It stated that Gardaí were trying to establish if the death was accidental or deliberate.
The woman, who is a close relation of the boyfriend (a minor) 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 “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 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 either of the “traumatised and extremely vulnerable young parents” at the time of publication.
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 headline of 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. She said that the young man’s attendance at school had been adversely impacted as a result of the coverage as he had been identified as one of the minors involved within the school community.
In relation to Principle 1, the publication responded that it understood that the position as stated in the article was correct at the time of publication.
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 to whom Gardaí had spoken or not spoken.
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 had 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. She does not find that Principle 2 was breached.
The complainant states that the headline of the article “is at the complete expense of the feelings of extremely vulnerable grieving parties”, in breach of Principle 5. The Press Ombudsman does not find that the headline, which is based on a quotation from the Gardaí, is inconsiderate of the feelings of the people involved, who are not named. She accepts the publication’s assertion that the subject matter of the article is in the public interest. She does not find that Principle 5 was breached.
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 as is the case in the matters which are the subject of this article. It also requires publications to have regard for the vulnerability of children.
The complainant said that the young man’s attendance at school had been adversely impacted as a result of the coverage. The Press Ombudsman has insufficient evidence with which to make a finding that this article contributed to the educational disruption described by the complainant.
27 August 2025