Search

The Press Council considered a complaint from CASPA, a child welfare and care service provider, about an article published by The Courier Mail on 13 March 2021, headed “Tragic flood dad on kid sex charge” in print, and “Father who lost wife and two children charged with child sex offence” online. The article reported that a “Father who lost his wife and two of his children…is charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl.” The article went on to state that the father “is facing serious criminal charges. He has been charged with six offences including two counts of having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl and supplying and possessing cannabis.” The article also reported on the father’s family history and in particular that a car accident, which he was not involved in, had resulted in the death of his wife and two of this three children. In reporting the circumstances of the accident, the article named the surviving child. The article did not infer that the child was a victim of the alleged crimes. The complainant said that until the article was published, the child was not aware of the criminal charges laid against the father. In addition, as a consequence of naming the child, school friends, teachers and the general community knew that the child’s father was charged with child sex and drug offences. The complainant said the pain and shame experienced by the child who is fragile and vulnerable has been extreme and may have contributed to a significant deterioration in the child’s mental health and the breakdown of family care placements. The complainant said it was unnecessary to name the child and that the intrusion into the child’s privacy, the substantial risk to the child’s health and safety and the obvious distress caused by the report, is not outweighed by any public interest. The complainant also said that attempts to resolve the complaint directly with the publication were unsuccessful. The publication acknowledged that the name of the child should not have been published and when the matter was brought to its attention it took steps to remove the child’s name from the online article as well as its digital archive. The publication said it offered the complainant a written undertaking that it would not use the child’s name in any future articles in relation to court proceedings concerning the father. During the Adjudication hearing, the complainant said that the charges against the father in relation to alleged sexual offences had been withdrawn. The complainant also indicated that a court suppression order preventing the naming of the father in relation to criminal charges laid against him had recently been made. In light of this the publication undertook to take the article down. The publication also said that it will proceed to issue the child with a written apology. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5), or causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety (General Principle 6), unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. They also require that 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 a crime unless the reference to them is necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings (Privacy Principle 7). The Council acknowledges that the child’s name has been referred to in previous articles concerning the tragic events involving the child’s family. Nonetheless, the Council considers that given the serious nature of the allegations that were made against the child’s father, there was a reasonable expectation that the child’s privacy should not be intruded upon. The Council also considers that in the circumstances, the reporting of the child’s name was not sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh this expectation of privacy. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 5 was breached in this respect. The Council also considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress or a substantial risk to health or safety. Identifying the child in a report concerning allegations of a serious criminal nature against the child’s father, was likely to cause substantial distress. The Council notes that publishing the child’s name was unnecessary and did not add to the report of court proceedings and there was no sufficient public interest justification in doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was also breached in this respect. As to Privacy Principle 7, the Council considers the inclusion of the child’s name was unnecessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the alleged crimes. Accordingly, Privacy Principle 7 was breached. The Council acknowledges that the article has now been taken down and welcomes the publication’s apology to the child. The Council notes that apart from finding that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice, this matter highlights for all publications the need to exercise great care and respect when naming children in articles concerning criminal matters. In this context, the Council notes the comments of the complainant concerning the distress this article has caused the child. 

Relevant Council Standards

 Publications must take reasonable steps to:

5. Avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
7. Privacy Principle 7: Sensitive personal information

In accordance with Principle 6 of the Council's Statement of General Principles, media organisations should take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. Members of the public caught up in newsworthy events should not be exploited. A victim or bereaved person has the right to refuse or terminate an interview or photographic session at any time. 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.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Daily Telegraph headed “Transgender Sport Safety and Fairness Concerns Raised by Female Volleyball Players” (Online) on 27 September 2021. The news article reported “Female community sporting groups are raising concerns about the issue of transgender athletes playing in women’s competitions, saying officials need to begin addressing the issue and lay out clear guidelines. It comes in the wake of a furore in Queensland over an all-male netball team sweeping to victory against all female teams in an under-18 competition.” The article included comments attributed to the president of a local NSW volleyball association, saying “she was very welcoming of transgender players, but felt it would be fairer if they played in existing mixed game competitions where both sexes already play together.” The article also included comments from a co-founder of Save Women’s Sports Australasia who said, “Not only are we being asked to make sacrifices for men who self-declare a special identity, we are now being asked to sacrifice our own competitions to boys and men who simply want to play in our sports codes” and “The evidence unequivocally demonstrates men retain a significant performance advantage even if they have a ‘female gender identity’ and artificially reduce their testosterone levels.” In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that while the article includes comments from people who express concern with transgender athletes playing in women’s competitions, it does not include any balancing comments from a transgender athlete, an LGBTIQA+ sporting association or any other individual or organisation that is supportive of transgender participation in women’s sporting competitions. In response, the publication acknowledged the absence of comments from an individual or group in support of transgender athletes in women’s sporting competitions but noted the difficulty in obtaining comment from individuals or organisations in relation to such matters. The publication also noted that the Council has previously ruled that not every article always requires complete balance of all competing viewpoints. The publication said it makes editing decisions based on what the Council has previously ruled and that it would be unfair and inconsistent with past Council findings if it did not rule the same way in this instance. The publication also said that while, in this instance, there is an absence of balancing comments, it has previously published a range of stories which canvassed sensitive issues and presented differing views on a variety of transgender issues as part of its overall coverage. The publication said it is accepted journalistic practice that balance on a subject can be achieved through the publication of previous and subsequent articles. It also noted that in response to the complaint, it offered to publish a letter to the editor to allow an alternative view to be put forward. 

Conclusion

 The Council notes that General Principle 3 requires publications to take reasonable steps to “ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance”, and acknowledges that it has previously stated that this does not always require complete, or almost complete balance when reporting on a subject. However, the Council also considers that publications should be especially mindful of the need for balance when reporting on matters of important social debate. In certain instances, where a single article is part of a series covering a particular topic, the requisite balance might be achieved through the previous or subsequent publication of articles and letters to the editor that put forward alternative views. The Council notes however, that subsequent articles that seek to ensure balance on a subject, ought to be published in sufficiently close proximity to the date of the initial article and contain sufficient detail to inform readers that there have been a range of perspectives published on the subject. In this context, the Council does not consider the absence of balance in the article the subject of the complaint was addressed by the other articles put forward by the publication. The Council notes that the articles put forward by the publication would not enlighten readers that there is a range of competing views on transgender participation in women’s sport. The Council also notes that none of the articles were published in close temporal proximity to the relevant article, and further, that only one article contained comments that could be reasonably described as being supportive of one transgender athlete’s participation in a women’s sporting competition. The Council also notes that, notwithstanding the publication’s assertion that it was difficult to obtain comment from individuals or organisations that support transgender participation in sporting competitions, the publication sought and included comments from two individuals critical of transgender women’s participation in women’s sporting competitions. The Council also notes that the article contained links to further online articles that were also critical of transgender participation in women’s sporting competitions. Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3. In relation to the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor, the Council has previously stated that while letters can be sometimes used as a remedial tool to address balance, they will not always be an adequate response by a publication to inaccuracy, unfairness or lack of balance in a problematic article or series of articles. 

Relevant Council Standards

 Publications must take reasonable steps to:

3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by articles published by news.com.au headed “Australia’s most sadistic child killer applies for parole, sparking warning from original investigator" on 26 February 2021 and “Cop Reveals Creepy Love Letters Sent from Child Murderer's Prison Cell" on 27 February 2021. The 26 February 2021 article reported that “Australia’s most sadistic child killer ‘will kill again’ if freed, warns the detective who helped put the ‘most perverted evil human I have ever come across’ behind bars.” It reported that “Robin Reid is again up for parole consideration next month, 39 years after he kidnapped, tortured, shaved and buried alive Peter Aston, 13.” The article referred to Reid’s accomplice in the crime as his “transgender soldier lover” who the article reported “began hormone treatment” while in prison and changed their name by deed poll. The 27 February 2021 article reported that a “detective still haunted by the case of a perverted child killer has revealed how the sadistic criminal sent him twisted ‘love’ letters from prison” and that he is “being considered for parole almost 40 years after he and his transgender soldier lover kidnapped two boys and tortured and buried alive Peter Aston, 13, before killing him in 1982.” The article went on to report the “two men were lovers”, with his accomplice “harbouring a desire to become a woman, and Reid a Satanist and sadist with a desire to torture and kill a male as ‘sacrifice’”. The article included a photograph of the victim with the caption “Murder victim Peter Aston was beaten, shaved, tortured and buried alive by Reid and his transgender soldier lover.” In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the articles complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint expressed concern that the articles’ prominent references to Reid’s accomplice being a transgender person, including images of them were prejudicial given that their gender identity was not reported to be a relevant factor at the time the crime was committed. In response, the publication acknowledged that the crime for which Reid’s accomplice was convicted occurred prior to transitioning to a woman and that the references to their transgender status were accordingly irrelevant. The publication also said that when the complaint was brought to its attention, it initially understood that amendments to the articles to remove most of the transgender references were sufficient to address the concerns raised. Nonetheless, the publication said it accepts that there are aspects of the articles that infer a link between the accomplice’s transgender status and commission of the crime. The publication added that there is ongoing training in its newsroom on the need to report transgender issues in an appropriate and respectful manner. The publication said that given this training, and increased awareness in the newsroom, if the same articles were written now the irrelevant references to transgender status would not have been included. 

Conclusion

 The Council notes that Reid’s accomplice transitioned to a woman sometime after the crime for which they were convicted. As such, the Council considers the transgender references in the articles were irrelevant. The Council also notes that no information was presented to support the statement in the 27 February 2021 article that around the time of the crime, the accomplice was “harbouring a desire to become a woman”. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3. The Council notes that there was a significant public interest in the public being informed about the parole hearing of Reid given the seriousness of the crime he committed. However, the Council does not consider that there was sufficient public interest in the prominent references to his accomplice’s transgender status, which was not reported to have a connection with the crime for which they were convicted. The Council considers that the combined effect of the references to the accomplice’s transgender status together with the statement that, at the time of the crime, the accomplice harboured “a desire to become a woman”, could lead some readers to conclude that there was a connection between transgender status and the commission of the crime reported in the articles. The Council considers that in prominently referring to Reid’s accomplice’s transgender status in the articles, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was not sufficient public interest to justify doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6. The Council welcomes the publication’s subsequent amendments to the article to remove the transgender references, its acknowledgement that the transgender references were irrelevant and its newsroom education. The Council emphasises, however, that publications are obliged to take reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice at the time of publication. In this context, the Council has repeatedly stated that publications should exercise great care not to place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age. 

Relevant Council Standards

 Publications must take reasonable steps to: 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. 6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Julianne Toogood concerning an article published in the Cairns Post headed “Council’s legal bill revealed” in print and “Cassowary Coast Council to release legal costs information” online on 8 August 2020. The print article reported “DOCUMENTS proving a Far Northern council’s legal matters are covered by insurance have been made public after the Office of the Information Commissioner ruled in favour of a previously denied right to information request”. The online article reported “Documents detailing a Far Northern council’s legal expenditure have been made public after the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) ruled in favour of a previously denied right to information request.” The article went on to report that a “Cassowary Coast spokeswoman said the information would confirm the CEO’s defamation case was covered by council’s insurance provider ….” The article quoted a spokeswoman from the Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) saying: “We are grateful that the Office of the Information Commissioner deems certain documents to be of sufficient public interest that it should be released to offer assurance to our community”. The complainant said the article is false and misleading. The complainant said the publication had relied solely on a CCRC press release and it should have recognised that the CRCC CEO would benefit directly from false information being published. The complainant said the publication should not have only relied on a media release and should have taken additional steps to query the accuracy of the information it had been provided. She said that the publication ought to have been aware that the information provided by the CCRC should be checked given it had reported on public protest rallies about the CEO’s use of public money to fund his personal defamation claim against herself and her husband. She also said the documents released by the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) do not prove the insurer is covering the CEO’s defamation claim, and that the publication ought to have contacted her for comment. In response, the publication said the article was based upon a press release from the CCRC concerning documents being released by it as a result of a decision by the OIC. The publication said that, as indicated in the press release, the Council received a sum of money from its insurer in relation to a number of legal matters concerning the complainant.  The publication said the documentation referred to in the press release indicated that the defamation proceedings would be covered by insurance. It said the complainant appears to take issue with the fact that the article does not state that the costs paid by the insurer do not include the CEO’s defamation claim against the complainant. The publication said, however, the press release upon which the article is based does not make this distinction. The publication said the article is an accurate and fair report of the CCRC press release. It also said there was no requirement to seek a comment from the complainant given the article was based on a press release concerning a decision by the OIC and the documentation that would be released by the Council as a result of that decision. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach (General Principles 2 and 4). The Council considers that publications are entitled to draw heavily on a press release provided that in doing so they comply with the Council's Standards of Practice. It emphasises that any material taken from a press release should be presented in such a way that facts or opinion being asserted by the issuer of the release are clearly distinguishable from those being asserted by the publication itself. In this context, the Council notes that the publication’s statement in the print article only, that documents “proving” the CRCC’s legal matters are covered by insurance was not attributed to the CCRC press release. Therefore, in this instance, the publication went beyond reporting on the content of the press release to affirming its accuracy without taking reasonable steps to confirm the content of the press release was, in fact, accurate. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principe 1 in this respect. The Council notes that a subsequent amendment to the online article removed the words ‘documents proving.’ Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 2. In relation to General Principles 3 and 4, the Council does not consider that the publication was required to contact the complainant for comment. The Council accepts that the article is based on the press release by the CRCC in response to a decision by the OIC. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principles 3 and 4.