Deborah Barton against the Marlborough Express

The Marlborough Express published a story on October 23, 2024, headed Father in court for ‘dreadful’ behaviour at son’s party.

This was a report of a hearing in the Blenheim District Court where a man pleaded guilty to charges of intentional damage and assault charges. The man was intoxicated at his son’s birthday party, argued and got into a physical altercation with his ex-partner and crushed the birthday cake. He also punched in the window of his sister’s car.

Deborah Barton cited Stuff’s code of practice which says: “Journalists should pay particular attention to the best interests of children and young people when reporting, which may mean that even when information is provided with parental consent it may not be appropriate to publish it.”

She said there was a need to be mindful of the impact of the reporting process on people experiencing trauma.  The report had not been at all mindful of the impact of the news article on the child, his mother and aunt in a small community. It would create more shame and distress for the family.

The Marlborough Express said there was a process for applying for name suppression. The media had absolute privilege to cover court proceedings in a fair and balanced manner and the paper believed it had done that.

The editor said the complainant was essentially saying that anyone with children should be exempt from court reporting.

“Thankfully, there are people in the courtroom who can take these things into account and apply for or grant name suppression. Perhaps you follow up with the lawyer or the judge on that.” 

The Media Council notes the complainant has cited Stuff’s code of practice rather than the Media Council’s Principle (3) Children and Young Persons, which says: “In cases involving children and young people editors should demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests of the child or young person.”

The Council believes this was a story of legitimate interest to the public. It was certainly a warning to parents who behave disgracefully at a child’s birthday party. But the Council has no information about the offender’s children or the extent to which they might be identifiable from the information reported in the story.

As the Council has said before, editors have discretion to publish or leave out information from court reports. But as a rule, it is for the Court to say what information cannot be reported.  Lawyers can apply for suppression and judges can make a ruling if there are good reasons for doing so.

Embarrassment and shame are often felt by relatives when cases are heard – it goes with the public reporting of the courts. In the absence of a suppression order there is no basis for complaint.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.