OMB. 2543/2026 Mr Aidan McCane & Laois Live

May 13, 2026 | Decisions

The Press Ombudsperson has decided not to uphold a complaint from Mr Aidan McCane about an article published online by Laois Live in March 2026. Mr McCane stated 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), Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 7 (Court Reporting).

The Article

The article is a short district court report which states that a named person was accused of laundering a sum of money in 2023. A full address was given for him. The report states that the case was adjourned until April for service of the book of evidence.

The Complaint

The complainant stated that the address given for the accused was not correct, that it was in fact the complainants address and that its publication in this context could damage his reputation as a well-known local public servant, and could put him in danger. He sought an immediate amendment and apology.

On Principle 1 he said that when his address was wrongly published as that of the accused, he had informed the publication of the error and asserted that a correction, clarification and apology should have been issued to accurately inform the public.

On Principle 2 he said the publication had not verified that the accused did not reside at the address given, and therefore it had reported unconfirmed information as fact.

On Principle 3 he said that while the publication had subsequently removed the house number, thereby, in his view, acknowledging that the original report was inaccurate, it had not published a clarification, apology or explanation.

On Principle 4 he said that by publishing his home address as the address of the accused the article had the potential to cause damage to his reputation and his good name. He said the failure to publish a clarification, retraction or apology compounded the error.

On Principle 5 he said that by associating his home address with the accused the article had drawn unwarranted public attention to his home and personal circumstances. He said the refusal to publish a clarification or apology increased the likelihood that his home might continue to be associated with the accused in the public domain.

On Principle 7 he said that while the editor had subsequently removed the house number from the online report, the failure to issue a clarification or apology meant the correction was not adequate.

The Response

The publication stated that it had used the address provided by the court service as this was the one on record for the defendant. It said this was an essential part of court reporting to avoid misidentifying someone of the same name. It said that it could not take someones word in relation to information about defendants.

The publication noted that out of courtesy it had removed the house number from the address published. It had also advised him to alert the Gardai and the court service as it was the responsibility of the Gardai to ensure addresses were up to date. It said it had advised him that the case was due to come up again at a date in April so that this same issue will arise if the Gardai were not informed.

It said the publication had not made an error and that it had behaved correctly in accurately reporting evidence given in court. It said it had immediately removed the house number when Mr McCane contacted it and that the article had not been published in print so there is nothing to clarify. It said it had treated the complainant respectfully.

The editor of the publication subsequently informed the Office of the Press Ombudsman that when the case returned to court in April Gardai had requested a change of address for the defendant, and that the court record had been updated. It said that the report it had published on the April hearing had reflected the updated address and quoted a Garda who had acknowledged in court that it appeared there had been an error in the address first used.

The complainant remained unhappy with how the publication had handled the matter.

The Decision

The Press Ombudsperson appreciates and understands that the complainant was distressed by the publication of his address as that of a person accused of money laundering.

However, she finds that the publication correctly insisted that its responsibility was to report accurately what was stated in court, and to thereby avoid the risk of misidentifying a person with the same name as the accused party. Nor was it required of the publication to verify the address before publishing the court report. Court reports normally deal exclusively with evidence given in the court room.

The Press Ombudsperson also accepts that a publication cannot change an address given in court on the basis of a claim made to it by a member of the public. The Press Ombudsperson notes that this does not imply that the publication believed Mr McCane was lying. She notes that it advised him of the correct course of action to take to remedy the situation in advance of the next hearing. The Press Ombudsperson notes that Mr McCane did subsequently inform the Gardai that the wrong address had been given in evidence.

The Press Ombudsperson finds that the publication acted promptly upon receiving Mr McCanes complaint to try to remedy the situation by removing the house number. She accepts that it was not obliged to do so. It had published the address provided by Gardai to the court in April when reporting on the resumed case.

She finds that the publication did not make an error and therefore did not need to apologise. The article had been published online and not in print, and the house number had been removed at the earliest opportunity. The publication accurately reported what was stated in court as it is required to do by the Code of Practice.

The Press Ombudsperson finds that there was no breach of any Principles of the Code of Practice cited by the complainant.

This decision of the Press Ombudsman was appealed by Mr Aidan McCane. The Press Councils appeal decision is linked below.

View the Decision of the Press Council of Ireland