Search

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Daily Telegraph in print on 14 May 2021 headed “FATHER OF TWO DISMEMBERED IN DRUG DEAL: You can kiss your penis ‘goodbye’”. The article reported on the murder of Sydney father Goran Stevanovic and the sentencing of killer Khanh Xuan Pham. A large photograph of Pham blowing a kiss accompanied the article and was captioned “Penis-lopper Khanh Xuan Pham.” The article reported “A drug-addict who cut off a father-of-two’s penis and dismembered his corpse after brutally stabbing him to death in a western Sydney unit has been sentenced to at least 22 years in jail.” It also reported “The court heard that because the victim’s body had been mutilated, his family, due to their religious beliefs, were unable to perform funeral rites or see him before he was buried.” In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the headline in particular complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, without sufficient justification in the public interest (General Principle 6). 

Conclusion

 The Council notes the article is based upon a report of court proceedings concerning a violent drug-related crime. The Council accepts that the headline and the caption are a reasonable reflection of the reported events. Accordingly, the Council considers the article did not breach General Principle 3. The Council accepts that some readers may have found the specific factual description of the victim’s dismemberment distressing. The Council notes that beyond the strict requirements of the law, publications have a further responsibility to ensure compliance with the Standards of Practice, which may extend to moderating or not reporting particular information that has been presented in open court.  However, in this instance, the Council considers that there is sufficient public interest to report the graphic details of a serious drug-related crime as the article reported that victim’s family had been unable to bury him in accordance with their religious beliefs due to his dismemberment. This brutal aspect of the crime was also reported to be a relevant factor in sentencing. Accordingly, the Council considers the article did not breach General Principle 6. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council. 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.
4. 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 whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald headed “Rebel starts spreading the news” in print and online on 11 June 2022. The article, published in the Herald’s “Private Sydney” (PS) gossip column, reported that Australian actress Rebel Wilson had posted on Instagram to announce she was in a relationship with American-based fashion designer Ramona Agruma. In response to complaints 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 avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy without sufficient justification in the public interest; and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, without sufficient justification in the public interest. The Council noted the complaints raised concerns that the columnist’s request for a response for information about Ms Wilson’s same-sex relationship could be perceived as a threat to “out” her as gay. The complaints also raised concerns that Ms Wilson was forced to out herself on social media due to the request and that the article criticised her for not responding to the request. In response, the publication conceded that it breached the Council’s General Principles relating to privacy and avoidance of harm.The publication said that to address readers’ concerns with the article, it promptly retracted it from its website and replaced it with a prominent apology by the columnist and also published an editor’s note apologising to its readers. 

Conclusions

 The Council notes the steps the publication took at its own behest to address the concerns raised with the article, including retracting the article and publishing two apologies. The Council also notes the publication’s concession that it failed to take reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice concerning privacy and avoidance of harm. The Council accepts that public figures, such as Ms Wilson, can have a reduced expectation of privacy and there can also be a public interest sufficient to justify intruding on their reasonable expectations of privacy. However, in this instance, the Council considers that the tenor of the publication’s communications with Ms Wilson concerning a deeply personal matter and the associated commentary on a matter which had no apparent connection to her public activities, intruded on her reasonable expectations of privacy. The Council does not consider there was sufficient public interest to justify such an intrusion. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5. The Council considers that, taken collectively, the article’s reference to “outing” same-sex celebrity couples, its reference to giving Ms Wilson two days to respond to information concerning her relationship, and its forthright criticism of her for not responding, was likely to cause substantial offence and distress. The Council does not consider there was a sufficient public interest justification in doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council. 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.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Daily Telegraph headed “Global Warming Activist Dies from Local Heating” (Online) on 25 April 2022. The opinion piece commented on a New York Post article concerning the death of a climate activist, who the New York Post reported had died after he set himself on fire outside the United States Supreme Court Building. The opinion piece included excerpts from the New York Post article including: “The incident happened around 6:30 p.m. on the plaza in front of the court building. He was airlifted to a local hospital, where he died”; “This is a deeply fearless act of compassion to bring attention to climate crisis.”; and “David Buckel, 60, left behind a charred corpse and a typed suicide note that said he was burning himself to death using ‘fossil fuel’ to reflect how mankind was likewise killing itself, police sources said.” In commenting on the activist’s death, the opinion piece said “Let’s hope he used carbon offsets”; “Airlifted? Man, this guy went out in a blaze of fossil fuel glory”; and “He also used fossil fuel because solar would have taken too long.” In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article breached its Standards of Practice, in particular whether the publication took 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 (General Principle 6). As the complaints had also expressed concern that the article trivialises suicide, the Council also asked the publication to comment on whether its Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide were breached. In response, the publication said it was an opinion article in a blog that is well known for its right-of-centre viewpoint and for taking either a satirical outlook or providing commentary on some issues that are not to every person's taste. It said the opinion blog appears behind an online paywall and consumers must therefore firstly elect to subscribe to the service and then make their own personal decisions to click on to read individual items. It said that it does not contend that the writer’s views or approaches to some matters will be accepted by certain people and the writer makes a point of often presenting arguments in a way that some may find confronting or even offensive based on their own particular individual tastes. The publication said however, that the writer would argue strongly that as part of a democracy a variety of views should be allowed to be expressed, even those that some groups may detest and wish to have censored. 

Conclusion

 The Council notes the reported death of the activist, which took place on Earth Day outside the United States Supreme Court building, appears to have been a politically motivated act that sought to draw attention to climate change. In this context, the Council considers there is a significant public interest in allowing freedom of expression to comment on politically motivated acts even if that commentary is expressed in provocative terms, as in the case here. The Council considers that to the extent the article did cause substantial offence or distress, it was justified in the public interest. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 6. The Council acknowledges that while the activist died by suicide, it does not consider the Council’s Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide are applicable in this instance as it was a significant public and politically motivated incident which sought to draw attention to climate change issues. The Council notes that it would have been difficult to report this incident without mentioning the location and method. As previously noted, the Council considers there is a significant public interest in allowing publications the freedom to comment on events that are politically motivated and, in such circumstances, publications should not be constrained from commenting on a cause of a death.  Such circumstances are demonstrably different to those involving deaths by suicide of persons not seeking to make a political statement.  Accordingly, the Council makes no finding on the Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council. Publications must take reasonable steps to:

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.

Note – “Sufficiently in the public interest”: The necessary level of justification in the public interest is proportionate to the gravity of the potential breach of the Principles. Relevant factors to consider may include, for example, the importance in the public interest of: (a) ensuring everyone has genuine freedom of expression and access to reliable information; (b) protecting and enhancing independent and vigorous media; public safety and health; due administration of justice and government, personal privacy, and national security; (c) exposing or preventing crime, dishonesty and serious misconduct or incompetence (especially by public figures).” This Adjudication also considered the application of the Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Josh Bornstein concerning an article published by The Australian on 14 February 2022, headed “Josh Bornstein rekindles attack on ‘bonk ban’” online, and “Bornstein rekindles attack on ‘bonk ban’” in print on 15 February 2022. The article reported that “Would-be Labor senator Josh Bornstein savaged moves by the federal Coalition to introduce measures designed to limit the chance of ministers sleeping with staff.” The article went on to state that “Mr Bornstein argued that then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s so-called bonk ban was a ‘panicked and irresponsible’ response to the office scandal that engulfed Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. This was after Mr Joyce had an affair with his then staffer Vikki Campion, resulting in the end of his marriage.” The article also included comments from Mr Bornstein saying: “I stand by my long record of helping women address gender inequality. I have always highlighted the need for a proper legal framework to underpin efforts to keep workplaces free from bullying and harassment, and my 2018 commentary was emphasising this very point.” The complainant said the headline and the article misleadingly suggest he had repeated comments made in an article penned for another publication in 2018. The complainant said he has not repeated the comments he made in 2018. The complainant also said the article did not include his full response to questions asked of him by the journalist prior to publication and the comments that were included did not fairly reflect the comments he made. In response, the publication accepted that the word “rekindles” in the headline was not accurate and said to resolve the complaint it promptly offered to amend the headline of the online article and to also publish a correction of the headline in print. The publication said an amended online headline would remove the word “rekindles” and would make it clear the article is referring to the complainant’s past position on the Turnbull government's 2018 proposal. It also said it would add the year 2018 to the lead paragraph of the online article, instead of where it is currently mentioned in the third paragraph, to ensure that readers understood that the complainant’s criticism of the Turnbull government's proposal took place in the past. The publication said, in relation to publishing the complainant’s response in full, that it would not routinely do so. It said it is the role of journalists and editors to distil and edit material to bring relevant facts to readers. The publication said it included relevant aspects of the complainant’s response and summarised his other point. It also said it offered the complainant an opportunity to write a letter to the editor to further expand on his views. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4). The Council notes the publication’s acceptance that the use of the word “rekindles” in the headline is inaccurate. The Council also notes that on the material before it, there is no suggestion that the complainant had repeated the comments he made in an article in 2018 concerning a government proposal. The Council further notes that the article’s opening sentence adds to the misconception that the complainant’s comments are contemporary. The Council considers that in stating that the complainant had rekindled his attack on a past government proposal, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1. The Council notes that in resolution of the complaint, the publication offered to amend the online article and to publish a correction in print when it was notified of the complaint by the Press Council. The Council notes however, that at the time of the Adjudication Panel hearing, the online article remained uncorrected, and the print correction had not occurred. Given the reference to the complainant rekindling his attack on a government proposal is significantly inaccurate and misleading and remained uncorrected for some time, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other remedial action. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 2. The Council recognises the publication’s offer of a correction was not accepted by the complainant, and also that the publication subsequently corrected the online article. However, the Council emphasises the obligation under General Principle 2 to provide a correction is unqualified, and should have been made when the inaccuracy was identified. In relation to the complainant’s comments in response to being contacted by the journalist, the Council acknowledges there is no obligation on the publication to publish his comments in full and it is not standard practice to do so. The Council considers the complainant’s comments included in the article were a fair and reasonable summation of his criticisms of the publication and his views on assisting women in the workplace. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 3. The Council considers the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor in relation to the complainant’s views on assisting women in the workplace to address gender inequality was an adequate response. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council. Publications must take reasonable steps to:

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.
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.
4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered a complaint about an article published in the Mercury headed “Interim FVO left standing as Adam Brooks and former partner head to mediation” online on 16 September 2021 and “Court bid on Brooks” in print on 17 September 2021. The article reported that the complainant, who is an ex-partner of Tasmania’s former Mines Minister, Adam Brooks, “has applied for a family violence order against Mr Brooks.”  The article included a photograph of the complainant and quotes from the complainant’s address to the court saying “‘He kept coming into the house even after he moved to Brisbane. He would come in while I was at work and spend time there … And he would watch me from a lookout.” It reported that the Magistrate upheld an interim Family Violence Order (FVO) against Mr Brooks and set the matter down for mediation at a later date. The article went on to include comments from Mr Brooks’ lawyer saying the “respondent denies any wrong doing whatsoever and the allegations are very much in dispute.” The complainant said that the publication had repeatedly named her in the article as the Applicant of the FVO and had included a prominent photograph of herself with Mr Brooks. The complainant said she felt humiliated as the community would know about her past relationship with Mr Brooks and about the FVO. The complainant said that, as the Applicant for the FVO, she was seeking the protection of the court. The complainant said that, as the Applicant seeking an FVO, there was no public interest justification for the publication to intrude on her reasonable expectations of privacy or for it to contribute to her distress and the risk to her safety. The complainant said that while she acknowledges the important role media can play in highlighting issues of family violence, and that naming perpetrators can act as a deterrent to future offending, reporting on family violence should not deter victims from coming forward and seeking the assistance of the courts for fear of being named by the media. In response, the publication said the article is a news report of proceedings held in open court, with no suppression order on the identity of the complainant issued by the court or sought by the complainant. The publication said there is significant public interest in ensuring the media is able to report on the due administration of justice, including the matters heard, evidence raised, and parties involved in open court proceedings. The publication said its general policy is to not name alleged victims when reporting on domestic and family violence proceedings in open court. It said, however, given the high-profile nature of the former couple, the publication considered that its readership would have been aware that the article was referring to the complainant even if it had not named her, as the complainant’s relationship with Mr Brooks was public knowledge. The publication also said it sourced the photograph included in the article from the complainant’s Facebook page. It said, on balance, the public interest in naming the complainant was appropriate. During the Adjudication hearing, the publication said it now considered it appropriate to remove the complainant’s name and photograph from the article. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 5) and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). 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 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 accepts there were no suppression orders in place to prevent the publication from naming the complainant, nor were there any other legal restrictions preventing it from doing so. It is also clearly in the public interest for publications to report on findings of the courts, including in this case that a former Mines Minister, Adam Brooks was the subject of court proceedings.  Nonetheless, the Council considers that given the sensitive nature of the court proceedings in seeking an order to protect the complainant and the fact that the complainant’s actions were not the subject of court scrutiny, there was a reasonable expectation that the complainant’s privacy should not be intruded upon. The Council considers that, in the circumstances, the reporting of the complainant’s name and the inclusion of a prominent photograph of her was not sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh this expectation of privacy. The Council also considers that in this matter, the absence of a suppression order does not reduce 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 complainant in a report of court proceedings concerning allegations of domestic violence was likely to cause substantial distress without a sufficient public interest justification. The Council notes that publishing the complainant’s name and a prominent photograph of her was unnecessary and did not add to the report of court proceedings. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was also breached in this respect. As the complainant initiated the court proceedings, and is not merely a relative or friend of an accused person, the Council makes no finding in relation to Privacy Principle 7. The Council notes that this matter highlights for all publications the need to exercise great care and respect when reporting on matters concerning family and domestic violence. In this context, the Council notes amongst other matters highlighted in its Advisory Guideline on Family and Domestic Violence Reporting, is that the safety and well-being of those affected by family violence must be the primary consideration. Publications should not publish information that could cause or contribute to the risk of harm, offence or distress. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.“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.”

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 the publication of an article by Daily Mail Australia on 10 January 2017, headed “Transgender woman, 24, accused of bludgeoning two innocent people with an axe at 7-Eleven was born as a boy named Karl – but had a sex change two years ago in Thailand to become Evie”. It also included sub-headlines that “[i]n 2015, Ms Amati had a sex change operation” and that “[s]he travelled to Thailand for the op after years of identifying as transgender”. The article reported on a transgender woman arrested and charged in relation to a “terrifying axe attack” in Sydney. It reported that she “grew up… in an Italian family” and identified the Australian capital city and high school she had attended. It said she moved to Sydney in 2010, identifying her university and degree, and published a series of photographs and comments from her Facebook account dating back to that year. It said she “deleted all the photos of herself from when she was as a man” from Facebook with an exception, which it published, identifying the event at which it was taken. It published the woman’s comments in 2012 about having “wanted to be a girl for a while now”, which it said was “met with enthusiastic support from her friends and family”. It cited a transgender person who inspired her having “discussed composing a ‘coming out’ email to colleagues” at her place of employment, which was identified along with her role she worked in up to the day of the attack. It reported her subsequent social media post that she “gained approval to start hormone replacement therapy”. It included photographs of her “playing as a woman” in a band in 2013 and 2014 and as “Karl” in 2011. The article said the woman “travelled to Thailand in January 2015 for a sex change” operation and “was accompanied on the trip by her girlfriend”, who was identified by name, including photographs of them together. It also included a photograph from the girlfriend’s Facebook account, which also included the woman’s “mother, sister…and an unidentified man, along with herself”. The article contrasted the “happy, idyllic scenes of self-affirmation and family love” and the circumstances of the alleged crime. The article reported that when the woman first appeared in court, she requested supplies of an oestrogen booster and a testosterone suppressor, “both used in male to female transitions”. The article was later updated to note that the woman’s lawyer since attributed the attack to a “combination of sex change drugs and antidepressants”; that it “was widely speculated on social media that the transgender drugs may have contributed to the attack, especially when combined with the antidepressants she also requested”; and that “[t]here was wide public concern about whether [she] would be housed in a male or female prison…before it was known if she was pre- or post-sex change operation”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether, given the significant coverage of the woman’s transgender status and transition history and the coverage of family and friends not involved in the alleged crime, it took reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance as required by General Principle 3; 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 as required by General Principle 6; and to avoid identifying relatives or friends of people accused of a crime unless such references are necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings, according to Privacy Principle 7. The publication said it was aware prior to publication of suggestions that the woman’s transition may have influenced the alleged attack, which was carried out around the second anniversary of the surgery, and that this was a factor in deciding to include details of the surgery in the article. It also said after the woman requested transgender drugs, speculation arose about whether these may have contributed to the attack, and referred to its later report that the woman’s lawyers had raised a defence based on the effect of the drugs, so the article was updated to reflect this. It said all the information in the article about her transgender background had been made publicly available by the woman on Facebook and the article reported on her transition in a positive way, including comments from supportive family and friends. As to publishing the Facebook posts of the woman’s girlfriend, the names of the girlfriend and sister, and photographs of them as well as her mother and an unidentified man, the publication said these had been publicly available on Facebook for two years and it had tried to contact the woman’s girlfriend before publication for comment, but had been unsuccessful. Conclusion  The Council is satisfied that the woman’s transgender status was suggested by her request in court to be supplied with certain drugs. The factual material published about the woman’s background appears to have been obtained from her public Facebook page and there is no suggestion it was not presented in an accurate manner. While the Council is concerned about the many prominent references to the woman’s transgender status, especially in the headline and sub-headlines, the Council is satisfied that on the material available to it that reasonable steps were taken by the publication to report the factual material with fairness and balance. Accordingly, the Council concludes there was no breach of General Principle 3. In considering whether the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress prejudice or a risk to health or safety, the Council considers it is appropriate to take into account the nature of the alleged crime as reported, that the woman had requested transgender related and anti-depressant drugs, and that the personal background material was made available publicly by the woman on Facebook. While the Council is concerned about the extensive material in the article about her transgender status, given the nature of the alleged crime and information about the drugs being taken by the woman, the Council does not consider the publication breached General Principle 6 in this respect. Notwithstanding this, the Council considers that the Australian community may be at an early stage of understanding the appropriate approach to reporting transgender issues, and there is a need for caution and sensitivity in reporting on such matters. However, the publication included photographs of and the full name of her partner, as well as some of her personal Facebook comments. It also named the woman’s sister and included photographs of her as well as their mother an unidentified man with them. It was not necessary to include this level of detail and in any case, the faces of the woman’s friends and family could have been pixelated in the photographs. There was no sufficient public interest that justified doing otherwise. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or risk to health or safety, and General Principle 6 was breached in this respect. For the same reasons, Privacy Principle 7 was also breached. This adjudication applies the following Standards of Practice of the Council:

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.
4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.
5. 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.

 Privacy Principle 7: Sensitive personal informationIn 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.