The Press Ombudsperson has decided that the Kildare Nationalist took sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint about a court report published in March 2026. The complainant said the report 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 5 (Privacy).
The Article
The article is a report on the sentencing in the Circuit Court of a number of men for affray, after they took part in a car chase in pursuit of a close relation of the complainant, who has the same name as him. The report included a reference to evidence given about a person's alleged involvement with the death of a man in an incident which preceded the car chase.
After receiving a complaint from the man, the publication amended the article online to clarify that the reference was not to him. In subsequent correspondence it offered to publish a clarification in its print edition.
The Complaint
The complainant stated that he had been summonsed to attend the trial as a State witness. He did not specify how each of the cited Principles were breached. He stated that:
- the article was inaccurate and misleading, in that it had associated him with an incident "which has absolutely nothing to do with me".
- unconfirmed reports had been reported as if they were fact.
- the article had damaged his and his family's reputation.
- his "basic human rights" and the rights of his family to "privacy, dignity and respect" had been violated.
The complainant noted that the publication had, after he complained to it, amended the online version. However, he said that there was no correction in the printed edition which was widely distributed.
The Response
The publication quoted Principle 7.2 of the Code which states that "nothing in this Code shall prohibit the fair and accurate reporting of legal proceedings", and said that this was a fair and accurate court report. It said it was clear from the report that it did not associate the complainant with the death of any individual.
It noted that the incident of the death had occurred earlier than was stated in the report but said this was a peripheral detail.
It pointed out that it had already amended the article online so that the shared name was omitted and the complainant was referred to instead as the relative of the injured party, so as to distinguish them. It noted that it had done so as a gesture of good will and in response to the personal concerns he had raised. The publication subsequently amended the timing error it had acknowledged. It had also offered, as gesture of good faith, to carry a clarification of these matters in its print edition. It commented that the complainant had not responded.
The publication noted that the complainant had not set out the specifics of his complaint in relation to the Principles he cited, and requested that if he proposed to proceed with the complaint he should do so. It reiterated that it had made online amendments and had offered to publish a print clarification, and that the complainant had not responded. It once again renewed the offer.
Decision
The Press Ombudsperson finds that this is a fair and accurate court report. She finds that it is clear from the article that the person referred to in connection with the death which happened on an occasion prior to the car chase incident was not the complainant, so the reference does not risk causing him reputational damage. She accepts that the timing of the death to which reference is made is not a significant detail.
She finds no instances of unconfirmed reports being referred to as facts, and reiterates that this is a court report and as such includes evidence given in court but not asserted by the publication as matters of established fact.
She finds no evidence of any breach of privacy.
The Press Ombudsman finds that there were no breaches of the Code under the Principles cited. She notes that despite this, in good faith, the publication made a clarification online and offered one in print, which amounts to sufficient remedial action by the publication.