Case Study General Principle 6

Transcription

1 Case Study General Principle 6 Publications must 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 Example A Complainant/The Courier-Mail (September 2016) Background and Complaint The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Courier Mail on 26 March headed DADDY DID IT : Eight-year-old star witness in murder trial, court told in print and Boy 8, to be key witness at father s murder trial online. The article reported on a bail application by a man accused of murder, in which the prosecution was considering calling as a key witness the man s eight-year-old son, who was six at the time of the alleged murder. The article identified the boy by his full name as well as the accused and the location of the alleged murder. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice with regard to avoiding intruding on reasonable expectations of privacy and not causing substantial distress, particularly as the material involved naming an eight-year-old child as a potential witness in his father s murder trial.

2 Example A Complainant/The Courier-Mail (September 2016) Publication s response The publication said the article was a fair and accurate report of court proceedings that complied with the law. It said the boy was a witness and not a victim of crime and the prosecution s concern had been that if released on bail the accused might seek to influence his son. It said the reference to the boy s identity was necessary for a full and accurate reporting of the proceedings and it was not appropriate for the publication to choose not to identify him. The publication based this on the fact that the judicial officer had not made any orders suppressing the boy s identity and, in a case heard in open court, witnesses do not have an expectation of privacy and it is in the public interest for them to be named so that justice is seen to be done. It also said other publications had published the name of the boy. 2

3 3

4 4

5 Adjudication 1683: Complainant/The Courier-Mail (September 2016) Press Council Conclusions The Council s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that they avoid intruding on a person s reasonable expectations of privacy and contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice or substantial risk to health or safety unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principles 5 and 6). The Council accepts that the court did not make any orders suppressing the boy s name in this case, nor were there any other legal restrictions on identification, so the publication clearly did nothing unlawful. However, beyond the strict requirements of the law, publications have a further responsibility to ensure compliance with the Standards of Practice. The Council considers that given the age of the boy, the nature of the allegations against his father and the fact that the prosecutor was contemplating calling him as a witness against his father, there was a reasonable expectation that the boy s privacy should not be intruded upon by being named in the article. This was so even if his name had been used by the prosecutor in open court during the course of the bail application. The Council considers that the reporting of his name was not sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh this expectation of privacy in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Council concludes that its General Principle 5 was breached in this respect. The Council also considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice or substantial risk to health or safety of the boy. Identifying him left him open to distress or worse, for instance at school and in the schoolyard. Publishing his name added nothing to the impact of the story and was not sufficiently in the public interest to justify risking such consequences. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was also breached in this respect. Relevant Council Standards (not required for publication): 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. 5

6 Case Study General Principle 6 Publications must 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 Example B Complainant/Hamilton Spectator (September 2015) Background and Complaint The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an editorial in the Hamilton Spectator on 25 April 2015, which formed part of the paper s weekly editorial known as The Spec BLOG. It commented on the punishment of two offenders in separate child abuse cases. One involved a former priest who had lost an appeal against a prison sentence for the indecent assault of a nine year old girl. The other involved a former Hamilton teacher, sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months. The editorial opined that the suspended sentence for an 83 year old infirm priest living in a nursing home seemed pointless and that he was obviously not going to reoffend. The former teacher was said to have got 18 months gaol for merely touching an U16 girl s breast and genitals. The editorial noted the judge in the matter had described the offence as at the lower end of the scale, and yet the guy still drew 18 months with six to be served immediately. The editorial stated something like this for the middle-age bachelor has the hallmarks of misguided curiosity and you could argue that this was closer to a case of appalling manners than major crime. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice requiring that reasonable steps be taken to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice. The publication was also asked to comment on the references to the teacher merely touching the female student, to the misguided curiosity of the offender, and the suggestion the child abuse was closer to a case of appalling manners than a major crime. 6

7 Example B Complainant/Hamilton Spectator (September 2015) Publication s response The publication said the intention was to consider the wide range of impacts that such abuse can have. The editorial had repeated what a judge had said in one of the cases that the offence was at the lower end of the scale. The publication said the scale concerned would be the worst crimes at one end, and bad manners at the other, and that its attempt was to echo what the judge had said, namely that in some cases the offence could be at the lower bad manners end of that scale. It said it was not suggesting child abuse was akin to bad manners and acknowledged the poor choice of words had contributed to the offence caused to many readers. The publication said it had done all it could to rectify the misunderstanding. It provided substantial opportunities for readers and editorial staff to publish criticism of the editorial. It said it also published a follow-up Blog in which it acknowledged the word merely had been thoughtless and clearly offensive. It said sexual assault involving children was particularly repugnant, that it apologised to victims of sexual abuse and their families, and noted this apology had received wide distribution across several media outlets and via social media. 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 Adjudication 1658: Complainant/Hamilton Spectator (September 2015) Press Council Conclusions The Council accepts that some of the opinions expressed in the editorial may have been the result of poor expression. However, the effect of the editorial was to trivialise the crime and crimes of that kind. The expressions used with reference to child sexual assault, in particular terms such as merely touching and misguided curiosity reflect a significant misunderstanding of the nature and effects of this type of offending and of its seriousness. Council notes the paper published a number of critical responses, including from its own staff. A follow-up editorial on 29 April expressed regret, although no apology, and stood by the comments which were made. A subsequent piece published on 2 May contained a more general but qualified apology that began with a claim that the publication s critics were like a lynch mob. Council concludes that the editorial would have caused substantial offence to a large number of victims, their families and to members of the wider community. The measures taken by the publication in publishing responses does not remove the effects of the breach, nor does the rather grudging apology prevent the matter being treated as a significant breach. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of its Standards in relation to General Principle 6. Relevant Council Standards (not required for publication): This adjudication applies the following Standard of Practice of the Council: 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. 11