|
 |
 |
|
Case Studies Case Study 5 (February 2002): Reproduced below is the article, on which the complaint was based, and the correspondence which was given to all members of the Council. For the purpose of this exercise, you are asked to read the dossier and then determine whether they would uphold, uphold in part or dismiss the complaint lodged about the article. Details of the Case Studies process are contained in the introduction to the Case Studies pages. If you would like to, you can send to the Council your adjudication and the reasons for that adjudication. Subsequently the Council will post a precis of its adjudication of the complaint based on similar material and a summary of the "adjudications" received from Web users. The dossier contains: The article The Morning Gazette Pint-sized criminal who loved to terrorise victimsby ROSS TAYLOR
Don Peter Sullivan died as he lived - by the law of the gun. When state police ended his life this week in a hail of bullets, they did what dozens of detectives had itched to do for the past nine years. Police across Australia regarded him - not Russell "Mad Dog" Cox - as Australia's Public Enemy No. 1. A pint-sized, baby-faced criminal who took delight in terrorising his victims, Sullivan was on the "most wanted" lists of three states. His life of armed robbery began 15 years ago. A 17-year-old soldier, he was absent without leave when he stole rifles and ammunition to rob a bank of $6000. He also viciously assaulted three bank employees. The diminutive Sullivan, 163 cm (5ft. 4in.), was on his way. Six months later he was captured and sentenced to 10 years' hard labour, but served only three before being released on parole. Seven armed robberies and three years later, the police again caught up with him. By then Sullivan had earned the reputation of enjoying some violence with his robberies. In one bank holdup he shot a security guard in the stomach. The guard suffered crippling permanent injuries. Sullivan and his accomplice Joan Street became known as "Bonnie and Clyde". For three years they eluded police. Keeping on the run, they stopped only to rob banks, building societies and TAB agencies when money was needed. By then, Sullivan was a heroin addict. Money was always short. They travelled light with only a huge dog for company. The dog "Killer" was a cross between a boxer, bull-terrier and great dane. Sullivan regarded the dog as his best mate. By the time he was arrested in March 1980 his file warned: "Extremely dangerous, cool and cunning - only to be approached by armed police." Sullivan had a sense of humour - of sorts. After a television station alleged he had carried out one armed robbery, he wrote to police denying it: "I suppose you will be accusing me of stealing milk money next." Sullivan never faced trial. He escaped from a maximum security prison on June 12, 1980 while on remand. Sullivan smashed a window in the jail and climbed down a knotted extension cord. Somehow he managed to run across three football fields without being seen by prison warders. Nine years of freedom were to follow. Two major armed robberies of state Banks financed the purchase of two properties. Police raided both - and narrowly missed him each time. Sullivan became an expert at disguises and fled interstate where he carried out at least four armed robberies of banks which netted him more than $44,000. After one of them, he wrote to police saying: "Your patrolman are most polite, even if they did stop me three times. So much for the drink-driving blitz." But police were not amused. In one robbery he terrified customers when he let off a smoke bomb before leaving. In another, he shot and critically wounded a chemist. By now his police file read: "It is believed he will not hesitate to shoot police or any other person to avoid apprehension." Sullivan, using the alias of Smithy Jones, crossed several states and ended up in the city. [ return to top ] The Complaint I wish to complain about the article written by Ross Taylor in the Morning Gazette of 12 September, 1989. Taylor wrote "When state police ended his (Sullivan's) life this week in a hail of bullets, they did what dozens of detectives had itched to do for the past nine years." That seems to indicate a very poor attitude of Taylor towards the police. Very emotional language - dozens of police itching to murder Sullivan in a hail of bullets. Would we want a police force like that? Do we have one like that? I'd find it hard to believe. What evidence does Taylor have? Surely here is a most unobjective opinion with very little substance put out in a very emotive manner which does little to either build the image of police who have a most difficult job to do, or little to build an understanding of the forces in society which cause a young fellow to move so far down the path of antisocial behaviour. I'm not saying that there was any other solution than what finally evolved. But with emotion running high it seems most unprofessional to write the sort of words Taylor used. I don't see how you can discipline Taylor but it seems obvious that he should not stand alone. The administrators of the paper - the editors, sub-editors etc. obviously passed the article and it was finally published as I have quoted. I would appreciate your investigation of the matter. If it has no other effect it will raise the consciousness of Taylor himself and the editorial staff in general to the fact that such wild and irresponsible statements are not appreciated by at least some of the population. Thank you for your consideration. [ return to top ] Editor's reply As the article was by-lined the opinions therein are those of Mr Taylor. I think the complaint can best be answered by forwarding the attached memorandum from Mr Taylor. From the newspaper's point of view, Mr Taylor is considered a senior police roundsman with an acknowledged reputation in this area of journalism. He certainly is not the author of "wild and irresponsible statements". [ return to top ] Attachment: The by-lined columnist's comments I have been a crime and investigative reporter for about 22 years in three state capitals. Over the years, since Sullivan escaped in 1980, I have heard many police officers express a wish to catch up with Sullivan. In most cases they added it would be a pleasure to shoot him as he would be trying to do exactly that to them. They were sure he would be armed and wanting to shoot it out. In the wash up after Sullivan was killed - and Senior Constable Paul Young was killed by him - many angry local senior police expressed regrets to me that they had not had the opportunity to catch up with Sullivan. They made it clear they had been waiting nine years for an opportunity to come face to face with him. What I did not repeat (in the article) was some of the words they used to describe Sullivan. They hated him. They saw him as one of the lowest of the low of criminals. They regarded him - as my story pointed out - as Australia's Public Enemy No. 1. They saw him as a vicious criminal who took delight in terrorising innocent people while carrying out his armed hold-ups. They said any person who could cold-bloodedly shoot a bank security guard in the stomach and critically wound an unarmed chemist would not hesitate to kill a police officer. They saw Sullivan as a menace to society and said it was a pity they had not come across him - while he was on the run for nine years - before he had had the chance to kill a police officer. The complainant asks: "Do we want a police force like that?" The police officers who expressed their wish to me were not necessarily going to carry out their threat. They are hard-working senior officers who have to deal with the trauma left behind by armed bank robbers. I said they had had an "itch" to kill Sullivan. I feel that term expressed exactly what the situation was - that dozens of detectives in Australia had an "itch" to meet up with Sullivan and, if necessary, shoot it out with him. [ return to top ] The complainant wrote further I believe Mr Taylor's response says it all. Throughout his letter Taylor says that police wished "to catch up with Sullivan" - "a pleasure to shoot him as he would be trying to do exactly that to them" - "regrets ..... that they had not had the opportunity to catch up with Sullivan" - "waiting .... to come face to face with him" etc. etc. He agrees he said "they had had an 'itch' to kill Sullivan". He says "I feel the term expressed exactly what the situation was - that dozens of detectives in Australia had had an 'itch' to meet up wth Sullivan and, if necessary, shoot it out with him." [my emphasis]. That to me sounds very different from the implication that police had itched to end his life in a hail of bullets. "When state police ended his life this week in a hail of bullets, they did what dozens of detectives had itched to do for the past nine years". Taylor in fact in his letter says "The police officers who expressed their wish to me were not necessarily going to carry out their threat." It seems to me that Taylor in fact wrote a story that had elements that were quite wild and irresponsible and which in fact he knew was not describing the police in a way that he knew reflected their true values. The police have an enormously difficult job to do and articles that state they itch to cut down bad criminals in a hail of bullets do not do the community or the force any good at all. [ return to top ] Questions to consider
If you would like to, you can send to the Council your adjudication of the above complaint and the reasons for that adjudication. Subsequently the Council will post a precis of its adjudication of the complaint based on similar material and a summary of the "adjudications" received from Web users. Other Case Studies [ return to top ] |
Case Studies Series Case study 1 |
||
|
About the Council [ its history and benefits of self-regulation | Members] | |
|||
|
Last updated 1 February 2004 All material ©The Australian Press Council. Website Design, Construction & Maintenance by |
|||