HAYLEY MATTHEWS AGAINST RADIO NEW ZEALAND

Radio New Zealand published a story on June 18, 2024, headlined ‘Extremely rare’ LSD death leads to calls to get drugs tested. This was about a coroner’s report on the death in 2021 of a 20-year-old man who died of complications relating to LSD use.

Hayley Matthews, who was a friend of the deceased, said she was extremely upset to read the article, and that the deceased was named without the consent of his family or partner. They were very distressed and put through another grieving process after his name was published.

He had done nothing wrong and naming him did not provide a benefit to the public. He deserved privacy even in his death and his family should not be punished in their grieving.

She complained the article breached Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and (2) Privacy.

Radio New Zealand responded that this was a proper and appropriate report of a coroner’s findings. This sort of reporting was normal practice particularly when the coroner issued important recommendations and warnings. These reports were in the public interest and often, as in this case, also contained important public health messages.

Inclusion of names in Court-related stories was determined by Court suppression orders and not the media.  RNZ added that a reporter contacted the family before publication to give them the opportunity to comment on the case.

The Media Council understands the additional grief relatives and friends can experience on reading Coroner’s Court findings and resultant media reporting. That is unavoidable with a Court system that is, of necessity, open to the public and where the media have an important role in reporting on proceedings.

There is a clear public interest in such reporting, and that is particularly the case where coroners have a duty to establish cause of death and, where necessary, warn of life-threatening dangers.

It is also important to note that coroners have the authority to suppress names and other information where that is warranted. The media are obliged to abide by those orders. As for other information before the court, publication of details is always a matter of editorial discretion.

No case has been made to show how this article was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced and the Media Council’s privacy principle also explicitly states the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest.

There were no grounds to proceed.