Latest Adjudications

The Press Council has considered a complaint by the Lost Dogs’ Home about an article in The Age on 28 November 2015 headed “It’s concrete pens and barking dogs”.

The Council concluded that, as the article inferred that a dog “Dino” was euthanised for no valid reason, it was inaccurate and unfair not to include reference to Dino’s aggression and pancreatitis. As to the six other dogs referred to, the article covered their general treatment and it would have been reasonable for the publication to seek their medical histories and include material from them to provide a fair and balanced report. The voice-over in the embedded video unfairly implied hundreds of dogs were fed sedatives and antidepressants and it would have been reasonable for the publication to seek a response to these claims from the Home for inclusion in the article. Consequently, the Council considered the article breached General Principles 1 and 3, and the complaint was upheld in these respects.

The Council doubted whether allowing the Home only two days to respond before publication provided a reasonable time, but reached no conclusion in this respect.

The Council also considered it may have been unfair to make and use a recording of one of the Home’s staff without consent, but there was a sufficient public interest to justify doing so. As to a potential conflict of interest of one of the sources for the article, the Council considered the publication took sufficient steps to draw readers' attention to this issue. Accordingly, the Council did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

Finally, the Council considered Home’s letter to the Editor as published included the major elements to which the complainant sought to respond and was published within a reasonable time, and this aspect was not upheld.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a Cartoon captioned “AID À LA MODE” in The Australian on 14 December 2015.

The cartoon depicted a number of people in traditional Indian clothing, one with a hammer smashing a box bearing United Nations logos and labelled “SOLAR PANELS”, another throwing away a fragment of broken panel saying “IT’S NO GOOD, YOU CAN’T EAT THEM” and another saying “HANG ON, LET ME TRY ONE WITH A BIT OF MANGO CHUTNEY”.

The Council noted that cartoons are commonly expressions of opinion examining serious issues and which use exaggeration and absurdity to make their point. For this reason, significant latitude will usually be given in considering whether they breach Council’s Standards of Practice.

However, a publication can still fail to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial offence, distress or prejudice in publishing a particular cartoon and in that way can breach the Council’s General Principle 6.

The Council considered that the cartoon is an example of drawing on exaggeration and absurdity to make its point. While some readers may have found the cartoon offensive, the Council did not consider that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Accordingly, the Council concludes that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

The Press Council considered a complaint about an article in the Newcastle Herald, headed “A Waratah family complains about unwanted visits from an ‘aggressive’ autistic group home resident” on 11 December 2015 online and “Who cares: The group home, the screaming resident, the neighbourhood nightmare” on 12 December 2015 in print. The article reported disturbances experienced by a “neighbour” of the group home in which the complainant’s grandson was resident and a named family living “two blocks away”, who expressed concerns about the security and management of the group home.

The Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the article was not inaccurate or misleading and was fair and balanced. In addition, an accompanying editorial contextualised the article, using the personal experience of the named family to shed light on the wider debate on local disability services. The Council concluded there was no failure to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness or balance. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principles 1 and 3.

The Council acknowledged a degree of intrusion on the group home resident’s privacy, but this was outweighed by the significant public interest in vulnerable people in care. It also considered the apparent public nature of the reported behaviour reduced the reasonable expectation of privacy under General Principle 5. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

The Council appreciated that the reporting resulted in a degree of offence and distress for family members and friends. However, the Council also recognised the reported behaviour was essential and presented it in the context of the wider community debate on disability services. The publication had taken reasonable steps to sufficiently balance any likely offence with the overall public interest as required by General Principle 6. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published on news.com.au on 10 May 2016 headed “Campaign for justice over death of Lynette Daley, left to bleed after ‘wild sex’”.

The article concerned the death of Lynette Daley in January 2011. It said that Ms Daley was found “naked, bruised and bloodied” on a northern NSW beach. An autopsy found Ms Daley “had suffered horrific internal and external injuries after a violent sex act”, and “[t]he two men who were with her both admitted to having sex with the woman, but claimed it was consensual”. The article also said “a coroner later found that, with an extremely high blood-alcohol reading, there was no way the woman would have been able to consent to the sex acts performed on her”.

The Council considered that the original article should be read independently, and that the words “wild sex” as used in the headline and the first paragraph were not attributed to the two men or their representatives. The Council considered that the heading and the first paragraph misleadingly and unfairly suggested Ms Daley had consented to sexual acts immediately before her death. Accordingly, the Council considered the material breached General Principles 1 and 3.

As the true situation was made clear when an Editor’s note was added and a URL link included in the article, the Council considered the publication took reasonable steps to take remedial action. Accordingly, it concluded that General Principle 2 was not breached.
The Council considered that the article is likely to have caused some offence, distress or prejudice but, as it was corrected quickly, the Council concluded the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Accordingly, the Council concluded that its General Principle 6 was not breached.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Rita Timbery-Curtin, great-granddaughter of La Perouse Aboriginal figure Emma Timbery, about two articles published on 16 February 2016 in the Southern Courier which on the cover, and in both the articles on page 11, the publication stated that Ms Timbery still remains in an unmarked grave 100 years after her death.

The Council considered the material was inaccurate in stating that Emma Timbery’s grave was unmarked. It considered the publication had sufficient time to conduct its own site inspection or otherwise check the accuracy of the assertion rather than relying on information from the Memorial Trust where the grave is located. The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure its reporting was accurate in breach of General Principles 1 and 3, and these aspects of the complaint were upheld.

The Council considered that the factual inaccuracy was not adequately addressed by the Editor’s Note; it was not headed “Correction” and lacked due prominence, and a published apology would have been appropriate. The later Correction included an apology however the Council considered it was late and lacked due prominence. The Council concluded the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide an adequate remedy in breach of General Principle 2, and this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

The Council considered the publication took reasonable steps after publication to provide an opportunity for the family to reply in accordance with General Principle 3. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

The Council also considered that given the nature, prominence and repetition of the error, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence and distress to the family and others in the community. The Council concluded the publication breached General Principle 6, and this aspect of the complaint was also upheld.

The Press Council considered a complaint about two articles published in The Canberra Times headed “Former cop sues for psychiatric injury caused by horror car crash” on 14 May 2015, and “Former cop in horror crash to be paid $1.225 million. But who will foot the bill?” on 31 August 2015.The articles reported on legal proceedings before the ACT Supreme Court concerning a former police officer’s application for compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. The application arose from the officer being a passenger in a police vehicle pursuing a stolen car and then rendering first-aid to the victims of a high-speed collision which occurred following the pursuit.

The Council was sensitive to the distress that might be caused to a person suffering from mental health conditions such as PTSD and depression. However, the details of the former officer’s mental health condition were central to the Supreme Court’s considerations, no orders for suppression had been made, they were discussed in open court and repeated in the published decision of the Court which is publicly accessible on the internet, and it was not directly brought the publication’s attention that the publication of the former officer’s name risked aggravating his mental health condition.The Council did not consider that circumstances of the case or the earlier coronial and court orders gave the former officer a reasonable expectation that his name and mental health condition would not be published, or that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on any reasonable expectation of privacy.In addition, both General Principles 5 and 6 allow publication where it is sufficiently in the public interest. In this case, the Council considered there was a strong public interest in open justice, including the freedom of the press to explore matters of public importance, such as police pursuits and the effects of road accidents on victims and first responders. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Weekend Australian on 2-3 January 2016, headed “The minister, the texts and the Stormies night”. It reported allegations of inappropriate conduct against the then federal Minister for Cities, Jamie Briggs MP, in Hong Kong on official business, which led to Mr Briggs’ resignation from his Ministry. The allegations were made by a junior official employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in the Hong Kong consulate. The article detailed her age, position in DFAT and academic qualifications, that she was on her first posting overseas and the other meetings she attended that day.

The Council considered reporting on the conduct of the Minister was in the public interest as it involved a serious question of ministerial standards of behavior, but the identity of the woman was not a matter of public interest.

The Council accepted the publication intended in good faith to protect the privacy of the woman by withholding her name and pixilating her image. However, it did not consider sufficient steps were taken to protect the woman’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Council considered the question is not whether there was specific evidence that the woman’s identity could be discovered through an Internet search or that any particular person in fact identified the woman as a result of the article, but whether the publication took sufficient steps to minimise the risk that she would be identified by some means. It considered the information provided would quickly narrow the field, allowing friends, professional colleagues or others to identify the woman. The conduct of the Minister could have been reported without disclosure of so much personal information.

Accordingly, the Council concluded that General Principle 5 had been breached and upheld the complaint in this respect.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Margaret Masters about two articles in The Sunday Times headed "Swan Homes hired killer" on 13 September 2015 and "Church calls cops over Swan Homes" on 20 September. The articles were also published online by PerthNow with different headlines. The articles reported on allegations by former child residents of the Swan Homes orphanage of abuse by a former house master Leonard Darcey and Mrs Master’s father, children’s home director Angus Peterkin.

The Council concluded that the articles reported the allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Mr Peterkin as a fact. However, a statement made by the Anglican Archdiocese’s was not a definitive finding that abuse had occurred. In the absence of a conviction or further proof, reasonable steps to ensure accuracy required that the allegations be qualified by use of a word such as “alleged”. In addition, the report in the first article that Mr Darcey was released from gaol early “after receiving favourable character evidence” from Mr Peterkin misleadingly suggested the evidence led to his early release when it was given before Mr Darcey was sentenced. As a result, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the articles were accurate and not misleading, in breach of General Principle 1. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were upheld.

The Council accepted that the publication made attempts to contact Mr Peterkin’s family prior to the first article and that the family had elected not to contact it between publication of the first and second articles. However, the publication did not publish correspondence received from other former residents after the first article which, contrary to the allegations, contained positive recollections. In doing so, it failed to take reasonable steps to present the material with fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was also upheld.

The Council acknowledged the publication’s steps to subsequently correct the articles and its offer to publish other material and considered it took reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action and a reply. Accordingly, it complied with General Principles 2 and 4 and these aspects of the complaint were not upheld.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article on news.com.au on 13 January 2016, headed “Record $US1.5 billion Powerball draw now open to Australian punters”.

The article reported on a betting company, Lottoland, “giving Australians the chance to enter the world’s biggest ever lottery, the whopping $US1.5 billion ($2.15 billion) Powerball jackpot”, and quoted a Lottoland representative: “It’s quite incredible now to think Australian citizens through Lottoland can join in on the race to win a mega international lottery without having to leave the comfort of their own lounge room or office.”

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and reasonably fair and balanced (General Principle 3). The Council considered the original article may have led readers to believe they could enter directly into the American lottery by dealing with Lottoland. Accordingly, the Council concluded that General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.

The Council’s Standards also require reasonable steps to arrange a correction or other adequate remedial action where published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. The Council acknowledges the publication made amendments to the article (approximately a month later, after being alerted to the complaint) but would expect the publication to have become aware the original article was inaccurate or misleading when it published a related follow-up article on 19 January. The Council considered that reasonable steps would require the publication to link the later article to the original article in order to alert readers to the corrected information. In addition, although the later article did give a prominent explanation of the differences between the local Lottoland and American lottery, the amended article did not appear on the publication’s homepage where it had originally been prominently published, so the subsequent amendments, including an Editor’s Note, were unlikely to have been brought to the attention of the original readers. Accordingly, the Council concluded that General Principles 2 and 4 were also breached.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Courier Mail on 26 March 2016 headed “’DADDY DID IT’: Eight-year-old star witness in murder trial, court told” in print and a similar headline online. It reported the prosecution was considering calling a named boy as a key witness in his father’s murder trial and also identified the accused and the location of the alleged murder.

The Council accepted that no orders had been made suppressing the boy’s name, nor were there any other legal restrictions on identification. However, beyond the strict requirements of the law, publications have a further responsibility to ensure compliance with the Standards of Practice. The Council considered that given the boy’s age, the allegations against his father and that the boy might be called 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 in open court. The Council concluded the reporting his name was not sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh this expectation of privacy and accordingly, General Principle 5 was breached.

The Council also concluded 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 at school, for instance. Publishing his name was not sufficiently in the public interest to justify risking such consequences and General Principle 6 was also breached.

The Press Council considered a complaint by Rami Yousif about an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 22 November 2015 headed “BANNED: The 198 louts barred from every soccer game ground in the country”, which continued onto other pages and was also published online under a different headline. The complainant’s photograph (among others) appeared on the front page with a caption “10 years”, and again on page five with his name and the words “Wanderers supporter Ban: 10 years Spectator violence in a group”.

The complainant strongly denied he had been involved in anti-social conduct but the Council was not in a position to form an independent conclusion about this and the question was whether the publication took reasonable steps to determine the accuracy and fairness of the information in the article. The Council concluded that in the absence of any significant doubts about the veracity of the FFA dossier from which the publication had obtained the banned list, the publication was entitled to report its findings. Given the 10-year ban imposed on the complainant, normally reserved for serious anti-social behavior, the same logic can be applied to the publication’s use of the terms “louts” and “shame file”. Accordingly, the Council did not uphold the complaint in relation to General Principles 1 and 3.

In light of these conclusions and the publication’s offer of a right of reply, the Council considered there was no breach of General Principles 2 and 4.

The Council accepted that the publication obtained the photographs of the complainant from the FFA dossier. Given concerns about public safety, the Council concluded the complainant’s expectation of privacy was outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the banned list and there was no breach of General Principle 5.

While the publicity may have caused the complainant considerable distress, the Council considered there was a significant public interest in disclosure of the banned list, and accordingly did not uphold the complaint in relation to General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article headed “THE SILENCE OF THE DEAD” in The Daily Telegraph on 2 January 2016.

The article was spread across two pages. On the left hand page, a sub-headline “ROYAL COMMISSIONER DYSON HEYDON HAS EXPOSED THE MURKY WORLD OF UNION POWER IN A DAMNING REPORT ON CORRUPTION…” appeared next to a large image of Royal Commissioner the Hon John Dyson Heydon AC QC. Below this were two quotes, apparently of findings, one of which said: “He was almost always unbelievable. He conveyed an impression of being a phony”. Set out opposite on the right hand page was a large screen shot image of Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten appearing as a witness at the Royal Commission including the words “Witness: Bill Shorten”.

The Council considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was not misleading or unfair. Mr Shorten was exonerated by the Royal Commission. The Council considered the presentation of the article including the sub-headline, the large image of the Royal Commissioner and the screen shot of Mr Shorten giving evidence set out opposite each other and the presentation of the quotes all combined to convey a misleading and unfair impression that the quoted adverse findings referred to Mr Shorten. Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3. In light of the nature of the breach and the lack of complaint by Mr Shorten himself, the Council did not make any finding of a breach of General Principles 2 and 4.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 22 February 2016 headed “The horrifying untold story of Louise” in print and with a similar headline online. It reported on the alleged rape of “Louise” by men she said were Arabic-speaking and described as “MERCs. Middle Eastern raping c----”, and said the NSW Police took no action.

The Council noted that the article concerned serious and distressing allegations that would likely cause substantial offence, distress and/or prejudice, and it was necessary to be especially rigorous in determining their veracity. All of them would have been readily dismissed with basic fact-checking, but this was not done. The Council concluded that reasonable steps were not taken to verify the report and to avoid substantial offence, distress and prejudice in breach of the Council’s Standards.

The Council’s Standards also require that reasonable steps be taken to publish a correction or take other adequate remedial action where material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. Given the subsequent publication of critical articles and letters and other steps taken, the Council did not consider there was a breach in this respect.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Wade Laube, on behalf of Senator Sean Edwards, about an article in The Australian on 13 March 2015, headed “Nukes never free, senator told” in print and a similar headline online. It followed an announcement by the Senator urging governments to investigate the importation and recycling of spent nuclear fuel.

The Council considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness and balance in reporting that Dr Stone had directly questioned the Senator’s proposal and that Dr Stone rejected a claim made by the Senator that energy could be free when in fact Dr Stone had not do so. The publication breached General Principles 1 and 3 of the Council’s Standards of Practice in this respect. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were upheld.

The Council considered reporting that the Senator claimed his “plan to use spent fuel rods to generate nuclear power would revive South Australia’s ailing economy within five years” and was “promising it would lead to free power and abolition of $4.4 billion in state taxes” was open to a range of reasonable interpretations. In addition, on the material available to the Council, it was unable to form a final view about communications between the complainant and the newspaper prior to publication. Accordingly, it was unable to determine whether or not reasonable steps were taken to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance in relation to this part of the reporting.

The Council considered reporting of the South Australian Labor Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis’s comments could reasonably be regarded as a political comment and were not given prominence. Accordingly, it found no breach of General Principle 3 in this respect.
The Council acknowledged the publication’s later clarification about the reporting of Dr Stone’s comments but considered it should have been published earlier. The Council concluded there had been a breach of General Principles 2 and 4 and also upheld this aspect of the complaint.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by NBN Co about a front page article in the Tully Times on 29 October 2015, headed “No Brains Network”, and an article in the subsequent edition on 5 November, headed “NBN and country newspapers”.
The articles concerned the rollout of the NBN in the Tully region of the Cassowary Coast in Queensland, and contained criticism of the suggested likely costs and limited services of the NBN’s satellite services.

The Council considered that the publication should have sought comment from NBN Co’s media representative before the articles were published. Although the factual inaccuracies in the articles were not major ones, the lack of any alternate analysis being presented to readers rendered them misleading. The publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the articles were not misleading. Further, the statement in the second article that there had been no comment from NBN Co, when one had not in fact been sought, was also misleading and lacking in balance. The Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the articles were presented in a manner that was not misleading and was fair and balanced as required by General Principles 1 and 3. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

A publication is required to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. The Council considered that, given NBN Co’s Corporate Affairs Manager is its spokesperson, the publication should have given her a fair and reasonable opportunity to reply, and failure to do so breached General Principles 2 and 4. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was also upheld.