Adjudication No. 1373  (adjudicated October 2007)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Amber Summerville against The Perth Voice, a suburban newspaper, over its report of a verdict on costs in a sex-based harassment case handed down by the WA State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) on 5 April 2007.

The newspaper, in a 19 May edition, reported a $7,500 costs verdict against Ms Summerville, after she had unsuccessfully pursued sexual harassment and sex-based harassment claims against work colleagues through the WA Equal Opportunity Commission in 2005 and the SAT in 2006.

The costs case was unusual because proceedings brought under the Equal Opportunity Act in WA are normally "no cost" hearings.

In awarding costs against Ms Summerville, the SAT President, Justice Michael Barker, took into account the finding in the 2006 SAT hearing that Ms Summerville's evidence could not be relied upon and that, at their highest, her allegations could not be established

Ms Summerville wrote a letter to The Perth Voice's editor detailing 31 questions she claimed were raised by the article on the costs verdict. Many were irrelevant or introduced matters not covered by the newspaper. Others dealt with disputes of fact on which the Council is not in a position to rule.

She questioned why The Perth Voice covered the story in May when it had already been reported in the (Perth) Sunday Times in April. The newspaper responded that its reporter found the transcript on the SAT website and had not seen the earlier news report and had based his story on the 2006 and 2007 SAT judgment documents.

Ms Summerville contended the report was biased against her because it did not seek her comment.

The complainant further accused the newspaper of muddling and confusing the two complaints, but the Council can find no evidence of this.

The headline Music teacher beats sex rap also attracted Ms Summerville's ire. While the wording was deliberately attention-grabbing, it adequately described the outcome of the case.

In the Council's view there is no breach of the principles in the report, which relied largely on tribunal documents.

return to
Adjudication index

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.