Complaints Not Adjudicated 2002-2003

A small percentage of complaints, only 14.2 per cent, progressed through the Complaints Procedure (published in the Council's information booklet, Objects, Principles and Complaints Procedure, available from the office) to the adjudication stage in 2002-2003. Of the remaining complaints, some were refused, some referred to another body and others withdrawn for legal action. Details of the number in each category can be found in the statistics. 13.6 per cent of complainants did not follow-up a request from the Secretariat for more detail on their complaints. And then there are those complainants who were happy to let their complaint rest after receiving the publication's response to the complaint.

One area where there are a number of phone calls seeking advice or formal complaints disposed of by means other than adjudication is where the publication is reporting the proceedings of an open court hearing, in either a committal, a trial or a Coroner's court. The Council has consistently supported the right of newspapers to report open court hearings. Except in certain circumstances (the issuing of a suppression order, for example, or a legislative bar, as the reporting of specific details in the Family Court), those court reports are matters of public record and enable the reader unable to attend in person to be represented and have the matter reported on. If the reports are inaccurate or the publication is unbalanced in its overall coverage of the trial - reporting, say, the prosecution case but not the defence's responses to it - then that is a matter with which the Council can and will deal.

The Council has also said that the best response to inaccurate or unfair material can often be the submission of a contrary view for publication, either by letter or follow-up article and frequently advises putative complainants first to take up the matter with the publication direct.

One case in 2002-2003, which demonstrates many of the problems facing the Council in trying to process complaints about court reports, arose from the concerns with a particular newspaper's report from a complainant currently before the courts on rape charges. The complainant alleged that reports of court appearances, prior to a trial, were inaccurate and unfair and invaded the privacy of family members. The office looked at the cited articles and advised the complainant that the family name did not appear to have been mentioned in the reports and that those reports reflected what had been adduced in a court - material the newspaper was entitled to report. The complainant was upset that the case was receiving coverage at all and asserted that such coverage might prejudice the chances of a fair trial. The office, in refusing the complaint, noted that no inaccuracy had been demonstrated and advised the complainant that, if the reporting of the trial were unbalanced, a complaint might processed.

Complainants have, from time to time, asserted that a business has suffered as a result of the accurate reporting of the details of a court case, or that their reputation has suffered. In the Council's view, any 'blame' is sheeted home to the material adduced in court, not the newspaper which reported it. For that reason most such complaints are refused. This stance is also reflected in the Council's Privacy Standards for the Print Media which state in part:

Unless otherwise restricted by law or court order, open court hearings are matters of public record and can be reported by the press. Such reports need to be fair and balanced. They should not identify relatives or friends of people accused or convicted of crime unless the reference to them is necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings.

Some complaints about court reports lead to the Council seeking some informal comments from the publication concerned in an attempt to amicably reach a settlement of the complainant's concerns without the need for a formal processing of the complaint. The following are 2002-2003 examples of complaints about court reports that were withdrawn by the complainant after receiving a response from the publication which answered their concerns.

A victim of an assault believed a metropolitan newspaper failed to take reasonable steps to check the accuracy of what was reported; that it misrepresented the facts; and that it placed gratuitous emphasis on the defendant's (mature) age thereby creating sympathy for the defendant. The paper pointed out that the article accurately reported what was said in court, and that reporters are entitled (in fact, obliged) to cover evidence led by both sides, and that it is not for the reporter to gauge which evidence is true or false. It added that the reporter did not misrepresent the facts - given normal space restrictions he gave accurate, relevant information. The defendant's age was published as it is the paper's policy to include the age of those charged where it is available, in order to avoid confusion of identity.
The ex-wife of a man charged with supplying cannabis was concerned with an article about the drug raid. The country newspaper published the complainant's address, rather than that of her ex-husband. She complained that her reputation had been greatly damaged, that she was suffering considerable embarrassment, and that she expected the paper to face a penalty for the emotional injury and annoyance caused her. In its reply, the paper advised that the information on the police raid and subsequent charges were sourced through the Police themselves, who had provided to the court the information concerning the defendant and his address which had been published. The journalist who wrote the article had faxed a copy of it to the policeman in charge prior to publication. He had verified its accuracy. The error was the result of the actions of the defendant, who did not give accurate information nor update his address for the police and courts.
A regional daily published an item on the committal hearing of a man who had been charged with sex offences. The paper published the man's name, address, the dates between which the incidents were alleged to have occurred, and the age of the alleged victim. The male complainant was the partner of the female victim. He made the complaint on her behalf, stating that the town in question is a small one, and that his partner was quickly identified as the alleged victim. He added that his partner had been completely devastated by her ordeal being openly discussed in her hometown. After gaining legal advice, the paper responded that there had been no breach of the Evidence Act because there had been no suggestion in the article that the victim was a member of the alleged offender's family; and that the article was an accurate and fair report of the court proceedings. However, mindful of the delicacy of the matter, and how it could impact on someone in a small community, the paper undertook not to use names when reporting the case in the future.

The best outcome of all is when the Council - either through the Secretariat or via a Public Member of the Press Council - is able to facilitate a successful mediation of the complainant's concerns and see the matter settled amicably. This happened in nearly a quarter of the cases dealt with by the Council in 2002-2003. A selection of these mediated complaints follows and demonstrates the wide range of possible settlements available.

A weekly supplement to a metropolitan newspaper published inaccurate figures relating to road deaths in the United States. The complainant requested a correction of the inaccuracy. The paper published a correction in the next issue of the supplement.
A metropolitan newspaper published a series of articles on a stalking case which the complainant believed to be inaccurate and imbalanced. The paper published a follow-up article, correcting any perceived imbalance.
A bylined columnist in a metropolitan newspaper wrote an item which was intended to be humorous. The humour was lost on the complainant, who was offended by the graphic details contained in the item. The complainant and the paper had a telephone discussion. The eventual outcome of the talks was a written, personal, apology from the bylined columnist to the complainant for the offence caused.
An ethnic community newspaper published an article about a former asylum seeker murdered subsequent to his deportation. The paper alleged that the member of a Government body, who had recommended deportation, had done so knowing that the result would be extremely adverse for the deportee. The secretariat mediated between the parties. The newspaper and the complainant settled on a form of words, and the agreed retraction and apology were subsequently published in full to the complainant body's immense satisfaction.
A country newspaper published an article about a local action group. The group wanted a correction of what it viewed as inaccurate information in the article. At the suggestion of the Council office, the paper offered, and the complainant accepted, space in the letters page.
Another regional daily published an article on the death, in a road accident, of the complainant's brother. The article implied that the deceased brother had been responsible for the accident. A formal mediation with a Press Council member was held. The parties reached an agreement that the paper would: (a) sponsor an annual high school award in memory of the brother; (b) provide a written personal apology to the family; and (c) at the conclusion of the trial of the other driver, publish a suitable article and a correction of the original article.
A country newspaper published an article about a traffic fatality. The complainant, the employer of one of the victims, complained that the article invaded the privacy of the grieving family. The paper apologised for any distress caused to the family, and promised to take bereaved families into consideration when writing articles of a similar nature in future.
A metropolitan newspaper published an article on Meningococcal Disease and stated that it was due to a virus. The complainant, a medical practitioner, pointed out that the paper was incorrect, and that Meningococcal Disease is due to a bacterial infection. The paper compiled a briefing note on Meningococcal Disease, which was circulated to all reporters and sub-editors.
A suburban newspaper made a small mistake in a political candidate's profile. A correction, satisfactory to the complainant, was published after Council intervention.
A Sunday metropolitan newspaper published a photograph of the complainant's dead 17 years old son. The complainant found the publication both disturbing and unethical. A formal mediation was conducted by a public member of the Press Council. The mediation gave the complainant the opportunity of personally explaining the hurt and grief the publication had caused the family. The complainant agreed to accept the newspaper's offer of submitting a letter for publication.
A metropolitan Sunday newspaper published an article which the complainant believed to be part of an "anti-Polish campaign" by the newspaper and its daily affiliate. After mediation, the paper agreed to publish a 'reasonable' letter from the complainant. He submitted a letter which the newspaper published in a truncated form, without further consultation with either the complainant or the Council. The published letter outlined the complainant's his concerns with the particular article but omitted his wider criticisms of the newspaper and his allegations of a campaign. This led to a further complaint.
A regional daily published a letter to the editor which gave details of the complainants' address, and the fact that they are not home seven days a week as they both work full-time. The complainants believed that the letter invaded their privacy. The paper offered an oral apology (a published apology was discounted as it would only keep the matter in the public forum). The complainants referred the matter to the Press Council (and the Privacy Commission which did not deal with the matter as the newspaper subscribed to the Council's Privacy Standards and was therefore exempt from the Privacy Act when engaged in journalism). The matter was resolved by mediation by a Public Member of the Press Council. The parties came to an agreement that the paper would write articles covering promotion of events to be held by two associations with which the complainants are affiliated.
A metropolitan newspaper published an opinion piece, critical of a recently published book. The author submitted a letter to the editor, which was not published by the paper. The secretariat of the Press Council arranged for publication of the letter. The complainant was happy with the outcome.

Occasionally, a complainant sends a formal letter of thanks to the Council or its office. Here are some we received last year:

	About the Council [ its history and benefits of self-regulation \| Members] \| Adjudications \| Complaints [ Privacy Standards \| Complaint Procedure \| Make a Complaint ] \| Public activities [ Council publications \| Case Studies \| APC Fellow \| Public Forums \| APC Prize ] \| Annual Address ] \| Freedom of the Press \| What's New \| APC News \| Guidelines \| Links \| Search this site [ by keyword or browse the sitemap ] \|

	Last updated 16 November 2007 All material ©The Australian Press Council. Email: info@presscouncil.org.au Copyright and Disclaimer Notice Website Design, Construction & Maintenance by Catherine McDonnell and the Australian Press Council.