Search

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 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 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.