Ian Hunt against The Press
Case Number: 3715
Council Meeting: 17 March 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: The Press
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Headlines and Captions
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories:
Headlines and Captions
Photographs
Overview
1. Ian Hunt complains about an article ABs mental guru, an old conviction and his failed bid to have it wiped published by The Press on 14 December 2024. The complaint raises Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (6) Headlines and Captions and (11) Photographs and Graphics. It is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article discusses All Blacks psychiatrist Ceri Evans who was convicted of careless driving in 1984 when he was 21 years old. The story says that although Dr Evans has given expert evidence in court, there was a time when he found himself on the other side of the courtroom (inside the dock). Dr Evans was fined $75 and ordered to complete a “dangerous driving” course. The main topic of the article is Dr Evans’ recent attempts to have his conviction overturned, driven by problems he has faced when travelling internationally. Relevantly, the article notes that:
a. Dr Evans sought leave of the High Court to appeal out of time to attempt to secure a discharge without conviction.
b. He also applied for name suppression.
c. The High Court dismissed both applications.
d. He appealed both High Court decisions to the Court of Appeal.
i. An appeal on the decision not to grant leave to appeal the conviction was rejected by the Court of Appeal as it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
ii. The appeal on the High Court decision regarding name suppression was heard but dismissed.
e. The article stated: “Both Evans’ conviction and name suppression bids were dismissed.”
3. The article is accompanied by a photo of Dr Evans. It shows his head and shoulders, sheltering under an umbrella. The tones of the picture are very dark, and Dr Evans (also wearing dark glasses) looks very serious.
The Complaint
4. Ian Hunt complains that the article was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced because of the headline, the choice of photo and incorrect statements in the text.
5. The story was inaccurate as it referred to Dr Evans as having been “inside the dock”. The charge on which he was convicted did not require Dr Evans to attend court, let alone stand inside the dock. The impression given by using this phrase was that the offending was serious when it was at the minor end of the scale. It was also inaccurate to report that Dr Evans had been instructed to undertake a “dangerous driving” course, he was actually required to attend a “defensive driving” course. This further suggested that the offence was a serious one.
6. It was also inaccurate for the article to say “Both Evans’ conviction and name suppression bids were dismissed” as the High Court did not consider an appeal against the conviction. Rather, it refused leave to attempt to appeal that conviction. Likewise, the Court of Appeal did not hear, or dismiss, an appeal against the conviction. It had no jurisdiction to overturn the High Court’s decision not to grant leave to appeal. The article was inaccurate as it conflated the outcomes in two different courts.
7. Mr Hunt states that the headline was sensationalist and did not accurately convey the substance of the article. He further states that the accompanying photograph casts Dr Evans in a poor light, and one that could imply or suggest criminal behaviour. It appears to have been carefully selected to support the sensationalist headline and chosen in order to cause harm to Dr Evans.
8. Mr Hunt refers to similar reporting from a different publisher that used a more complimentary photograph and was clearer in its text, as an example of what The Press ought to have published.
9. The article was also published online, however, Mr Hunt complains only in relation to the version published in the hardcopy edition of The Press.
The Response
10. The Press’s initial response to Mr Hunt’s complaint accepted that reference to the dangerous driving course was an error and ‘regrettably mislabelled’ due to human error. Reference to Dr Evans appearing ‘in the dock’ was intended as a turn of phrase and would have been understood as such by readers. The Press accepted it was incorrect in relation to both points but stressed that other aspects of the article focus on the minor nature of the offending. It published corrections in the next edition of The Press acknowledging these two errors and correcting them.
11. The Press did not accept that it was inaccurate to say that both the conviction and name suppression bids were dismissed. The article goes into some detail regarding the legal processes and this statement was a final summary of everything with ‘bid’ serving as a catch-all phrase. It did not state, or imply, that both bids were in the same court.
12. The Press considered that the headline was an accurate, factual and reasonable summary of the story. None of the facts mention in the headline are salacious or given undue prominence. Indeed, the three facts mentioned are accurate and given equal weight.
13. The Press also explains the process by which it selects photos noting that, in contrast to Mr Hunt, it considers that Dr Evans “looks serious in the photos, but also intelligent, focused and somewhat inscrutable. These are positive characteristics.”
14. Overall, the editor stood by the article as fair, accurate and balanced and an important piece of journalism telling of the experience
of a high profile person who has been repeatedly inconvenienced and embarrassed by a minor conviction. This exposes a predicament that most
readers would see as unjust. There was no deliberate attempt to harm Dr Evans. The story outlines Dr Evans’ achievements and gives
significant detail about the inconvenience his conviction continues to cause him. Its publication was in the public interest.
Formal complaint and final comments:
15. In his formal complaint to the Media Council, and his final comments, Mr Hunt
rejects The Press’s response and highlights the lack of explanation for the errors and the lack of apology. He also rejects the editor’s
explanation of the statement regarding the legal ‘bids.’ He considers those words suggest that both matters were in issue before the Court
of Appeal, but they were not. Moreover, the correction of the minor matters does not change the substance of the complaint or the article,
which remains in breach of three Media Council Principles. Finally, he rejects the suggestion that article was highlighting an unfair
aspect of the justice system. Rather, the intent of the article was to cause harm to Dr Evans.
The Discussion
16. The Press acknowledges that it was inaccurate to refer to both a ‘dangerous driving’ course and Dr Evans as having stood ‘in the dock.’ It corrected those errors in the next available edition of the paper (the complaint was made on Sunday 12 January 2025 and the correction ran on Tuesday 14 January 2025). The errors were sloppy, and for those familiar with criminal procedure the phrase ‘in the dock’ may well have suggested a level of offending much worse than was the case given the offense was at the bottom end of the scale. We have some sympathy for Mr Hunt’s perspective that they may have fed the view that Dr Evans’ offending was more serious than it was. However, we accept that other aspects of the story highlight the minor nature of the offending. We consider that the corrections were made promptly and were sufficient to fix what were relatively minor aspects of the story.
17. The statement “Both Evans’ conviction and name suppression bids were dismissed” is clumsy. It comes immediately after four paragraphs outlining the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in relation to rejecting the application for name suppression. In this context some readers may consider that the Court of Appeal was considering an appeal against the conviction as well. However, a close reading of the article makes it clear the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction in relation to the conviction and that the name suppression appeal was considered separately. We do not consider that read as whole the article was inaccurate on this point.
18. Principle (6) states that: “Headlines … should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover.” We do not consider that the headline “ABs mental guru, an old conviction and his failed bid to have it wiped” breached this principle. Each of these three factors were key elements of the story and summarised one of its essential points. The language may be colourful, but it is in keeping with the purpose of a headline which is to entice readers to look at the story and purchase the paper.
19. Principle (11) states that:
Editors should take care in photographic and image selection and treatment any technical manipulation that could mislead readers should be noted and explained. Photographs showing distressing or shocking situations should be handled with special consideration for those affected.
The Council accepts that the photo used could be interpreted by some readers as grim, however, it does not accept that it paints Dr Evans in a bad light or that readers will think it makes him look as if he is involved in criminal activity. We also think that it is irrelevant that a different publication chose to use a different photo. The use of this photo was within the editorial discretion of The Press.
20. Mr Hunt considers the errors, taken as a whole and in combination with the headline and photograph were part of a deliberate attempt to harm Dr Evans and the correction should have been accompanied by an apology. While the article can be read as being unkind to Dr Evans, certainly in comparison with similar reporting from a different publisher, we do not consider that the problems with it, taken separately or together, breach any of our principles.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld by unanimous decision
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff and Richard Pamatatau.
Council member Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.