Leo Li against Radio New Zealand

The New Zealand Herald ran three articles in February and March 2023 about Leo Li who has complained about the articles to the Media Council. The first article on February 26 was headlined Canada suitcase murder: Convicted killer Leo Li enters NZ with fake name, fighting to stay on as refugee. The same story was published in the Herald on Sunday under the headline Convicted Killer sneaks into NZ.

The second story published two days later was headlined Tibetans angry convicted Chinese murderer using Tibetan cause to fight deportation. The third story, published on March 9, 2023, was headlined Grieving mum, shocked daughter’s killer in fight to stay in NZ. 

The first story reported that Mr Li came to New Zealand five years earlier using a passport with a different name and date of birth and that authorities had no idea he had previously been convicted of killing his girlfriend. It added that he had since settled in Auckland and that authorities were now trying to have him deported. Mr Li was challenging this and had applied for refugee status, claiming he would be imprisoned and tortured if he was returned to China and his family would also be at risk.

The story included comment from Mr Li in which he set out his case. It reported that he denied involvement in his former girlfriend’s murder, that after an appeal against his murder conviction the Chinese courts had reduced it to manslaughter. It also reported his claims that he had been the subject of harassment by people acting for Chinese authorities, and his explanation for using different names.

The Herald reported comment from a refugee and protection officer’s report that concluded several claims made by Mr Li were not credible.

Mr Li complained the stories had seriously damaged his reputation, career and family life. It was complete “rubbish” to say he had been convicted of murder, and he said he had shown documents to the reporter proving that.

He said the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, (3) Children and Young People, (4) Comment and Fact, (6) Headlines and Captions, (7) Discrimination and Diversity, (8) Confidentiality, (9) Subterfuge and (11) Photographs and Graphics.

Mr Li complained to the Herald in August 2024, 18 months after the first story was published and complained to the Media Council in October 2024. This was well outside the time for filing complaints, but the Council chairman used his discretion to accept it, given that he claimed not to have been aware of the publications.

In its response to Mr Li’s lawyer’s letter the Herald said it did not accept that the articles were defamatory. The Herald said:

 “Your client was interviewed at length prior to publication of Article 1 and was given ample opportunity to comment prior to publication. Given your client has provided “false, evolving, inconsistent and contradictory evidence to NZ authorities” (including a failure to disclose serious criminal offending), the question of his application for refugee status is a matter of public interest.

 “Your client served several years of his life sentence for murder before the charge was amended by the Beijing High Court. Article 1 included several references to the fact the charge was later amended.”

The Herald declined a request to withdraw the stories, apologise or pay damages.

The Media Council does not consider there is a clear basis for this complaint. Most importantly it has not been shown how the stories breached Principle (1).  No evidence has been provided to show how the stories were inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. The articles contained serious allegations against Mr Li, but they also reported his response to those allegations.

It is accepted by New Zealand authorities that Mr Li was convicted of murder by a Chinese Court and that this was reduced on appeal to manslaughter.  The articles took information from a public report and quotes from others including Mr Li.

The alleged use of a false identity and documents to enter NZ was confirmed by the Immigration New Zealand report. In the interest of fairness and balance Mr Li was given the opportunity to comment and explain. He was also given the opportunity to respond to the allegation that he left Canada to evade prosecutions.  The matter of Mr Li acting as an agent of the Chinese government was clearly a quote from a leader of the Tibetan community.

Substantive arguments were not presented to show how the stories breached any of the Media Council Principles cited in this complaint.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.