The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about an article headed "My loving wife was no serial poisoner" in The Advertiser, Adelaide, on 4 February 2012. The article was published six days after the death of Emily Perry and described how during the 1980s she was charged with attempted murder by poisoning of her third husband (Ken Perry) and subsequently of murder by poisoning of her second husband. It described suggestions in the first trial that the deaths of her brother and of a de facto partner were also due to poisoning. It explained that her conviction on the first charge was overturned by the High Court because evidence of these other deaths should not have been admitted, and that she was not re-tried on that charge.
Mr Perry complained that the article was unfair, unbalanced and showed inadequate regard for the privacy and sensibilities of her family and friends, especially as it was published only a few days after her death. He said it focused only on charges from thirty years ago which were rejected by the courts and it did not adequately emphasise the High Court’s criticism of the forensic evidence against his wife, especially as the pathologist in question was subsequently criticised for serious mistakes in many other cases. He also said the article should have mentioned her lifetime of contributions to the community, including being a local councillor.
The newspaper said that Emily Perry’s legal battles had been matters of major public interest and it was appropriate to recall them after her death. It pointed out that the overturning of her conviction was mentioned very early in the article as well as being described later in more detail, and that the judge who severely criticised the forensic evidence was quoted to that effect even though it was not the court’s basis for overturning the conviction. It said the article emphasised Mr Perry's strong support for his wife during her trials and had relied on, and fairly summarised, the available file material about her cases. After Mr Perry complained to the Council, the newspaper offered to publish a letter from him. He did not take up the offer.
The Council has concluded that, given the extraordinary and highly-publicised nature of Emily Perry’s legal battles, it was not inappropriate to focus on them in an article following her death despite the pain this was likely to cause her husband, family and friends. It was especially important, however, that such an article be fair and balanced.
The Council has concluded that the article lacked adequate balance in these circumstances because it focused to a substantially greater degree on information and allegations which tended to raise suspicions about her than on significant exculpatory material which was readily available. In particular, it did not give due emphasis to the very grave doubts expressed by authoritative sources about the conduct of the pathologist in her case and many subsequent cases. Nor did it note that the murder charge related to her second husband was withdrawn. Accordingly, the complaint is upheld on the ground of lack of balance in circumstances where it was of special importance.
Addenda
(not required for publication by the newspaper):
The Council noted that the headline in the online version, "Emily Perry dies after life poisoned by cruel suspicion", helped to provide appropriate balance. No complaint was made about that version.
A family friend, Margaret Hallworth, complained along similar lines to Mr Perry. She and Mr Perry also expressed concern that the reporter had intruded unduly on his grief by leaving a number of voicemail messages. The Council did not consider these efforts to make contact were inappropriately intrusive, although it also considered the newspaper could not expect such calls to be returned in the circumstances.
Relevant Council Standards
(not required for publication by the newspaper):
This adjudication applies part of the Council’s General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced… ”; and General Principle 4: “News and comment should be presented honestly and fairly, and with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy is not to be interpreted as preventing publication of matters of public record or obvious or significant public interest ...”