The Press Ombudsperson has decided not to uphold a complaint from a woman about an article published by BreakingNews.ie at the end of 2025.
The Article
The article is a news report about a decision by An Coimisiún Pleanála to approve the installation of a sculpture in the grounds of a house despite opposition from a neighbour who had appealed the local council’s approval for it. The complainant is the neighbour.
The Complaint
The woman complained that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 8 (Prejudice).
In correspondence with the Office of the Press Ombudsman the complainant stated that the article contained “incorrect facts” and “was worded to tarnish my good name.”
In her formal complaint to the editor she did not address the Principles but included a breakdown of paragraphs in the article expanding on her objections to the planning permission.
She concluded that this was a “short synopsis of events in that garden, that are causing untold daily misery”. She said the article was “heavily biassed” in favour of those who had sought the planning permission “while ignoring the evidence, which should have been checked before going to print.”
The Response
The publication responded to the complainant that the article was “a report on the findings of An Coimisiún Pleanála, that it included “significant references to the objections made and to the findings of the Commission” and had been published in the public interest.
In response to the formal complaint to the Press Ombudsperson, it said it was not the role of the reporter to use a news story “to adjudicate the merits of either side of the planning dispute”. It said the article was a “fair, accurate and balanced account”.
The publication suggested that the complainant’s issues might better be taken up with the planning authority.
The Decision
The Press Ombudsperson is satisfied that this is a fair, accurate and balanced news report on a matter of public interest using materials that are on the public record. She finds no evidence that any of the Principles of the Code were breached.
On Principle 1, the Press Ombudsperson accepts the publication’s assertion that the Code did not require exhaustive description of every detail, but rather a fair summary of what was important. She finds this was provided.
On Principle 2, the Press Ombudsperson agrees with the publication that it was not its role to speculate on hypothetical scenarios and that it had it done so. She finds that the report attributed assertions to parties to the process and did not state that these were facts.
On Principle 3, the Press Ombudsperson accepts that the report included key contentions from both parties to the planning dispute without unfairness. She agrees with the publication that it was not its role to decide “the ultimate truth” of such contentions. She finds no evidence for the complainant’s assertion that there was an attempt to “tarnish” her good name.
On Principle 4, the Press Ombudsperson accepts that the publication used official planning documents and statements made in the planning process and presented the dispute objectively.
On Principle 8, the Press Ombudsperson agrees with the publication that there is no indication whatsoever of anything in the article which could be deemed capable of causing grave offence or creating prejudice against any of the groups protected under the Principle.