MS A AGAINST THE NZ HERALD
Case Number: 3523
Council Meeting: 29 July 2024
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters
Confidentiality
Ruling Categories: Court Reporting
Overview
- The NZ Herald published a story in April 2024 about the sentencing of a Christchurch man for violent crimes against his partner. Ms A, the victim of the attacks, complained about factual inaccuracies in the article and said it had breached her privacy and put her in danger. The complaint under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (2) Privacy is not upheld. The Media Council has chosen not to name either the offender or the complainant to avoid further identifying the complainant.
The Article
- The story reported the sentencing for the attacks, which broke bones, caused the young woman to miscarry, and left her with partial paralysis. The story covered her victim impact report, the summary of facts detailing the various assaults on the young woman, and the judge’s comments that the offender had treated her in an incredibly “cruel, barbaric and merciless” way. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
The Complaint
- Ms A said the article was published without her knowledge. She believed she had name suppression, but the details given in the article would identify her. The offender was a gang member and publishing his name had put her in danger for being a “snitch”.
- She felt her privacy had been breached because personal details, which she had only told the police and hospital, had been published. Friends and family had read the story and found out details she had wanted to keep secret.. People were able to work out who she was from the details published. Her story had been shared on social media.
- Ms A also said the story made it look as if she had been guilty of infidelity, which was not true, and it said she had been knocked unconscious, which was also incorrect. The publication of the story had caused her to relive her trauma and ruined her reputation. She said she felt as if she was going to be “haunted by this forever”.
The Response
- The NZ Herald said they did not receive Ms A’s initial complaint and apologised that they had been unable to respond to her until they were alerted by her complaint to the Media Council.
- The NZ Herald said that although Ms A thought she had name suppression, they had checked and she did not have name suppression, and because of her age she did not receive automatic name suppression. Because of the relatively young age of the victim and the traumatic ordeal she had been through, the reporter had discussed how the case should be covered with the editor. They considered how they could further protect her, including the possibility of not stating how she and the offender knew each other, but removing everything that suggested they were in a relationship could have made it appear he was offending against a stranger or a series of women he knew. The only other option was not to name the offender, but it was in the public interest for him to be named. The judge had commented he needed a “big sign around your neck saying dangerous". It was clear the judge felt the public needed to know who he was and what he had done.
- Ms A complained to the NZ Herald that the story had breached her privacy and was published without her knowledge. The paper had asked the Crown to alert Ms A to the fact that the story was going to run. The Crown said they had passed this to the Police, so the NZ Herald thought she had been informed but now assumed, based on her complaint, that she was not.
- The NZ Herald said they had taken care with the story, not publishing straight away as they were entitled to, and asking authorities to let her know about the story. They tried to find a balance between protecting Ms A and accurately reporting the case. They left out her name, the dates of the offending, her age and the dates they were together. Choosing this option meant future employers, landlords, friends or partners could not Google her name and find any link to the story.
- They believed there was not enough identifying information for most people who did not already know her circumstances to identify her. Reporting on domestic violence was always going to involve revealing details some victims would prefer to keep private, but there was no way to cover a story fairly and accurately without including those details. The only voice the media could offer the victim was to report the victim impact statement and it was difficult to know how the victim would feel about this. The media could only be guided by the judge and in this case the judge read the victim impact statement in court and there was no suppression.
- Ms A said her safety was now at risk because of the story, but the NZ Herald thought this was unlikely, and if there had been any suggestion of risk from the Crown when they were told about the story, they would have taken that into consideration.
- Regarding the factual matters, the summary of facts reported she had lost consciousness, and the NZ Herald said the story did not say she was guilty of infidelity, just that they were fighting about infidelity. This was also included in the summary of facts.
The Discussion
- Ms A complained under Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinions and Letters, and (8) Confidentiality. The Council considers the essence of her complaint is captured under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and Principle (2) Privacy.
- Under Principle (1) the Council finds there are no factual breaches proven. The statement about Ms A being rendered unconscious was part of the summary of facts presented in court and the NZ Herald was entitled to rely on this; the reference to infidelity was also part of the summary of facts. The way this part of the article was phrased could possibly be seen as ambiguous, so while it did not reach the standard of a breach of the accuracy standard, some Council members thought the NZ Herald should have taken more care with this aspect.
- Principle (2) Privacy says in part: “Everyone is normally entitled to privacy of person, space and personal information, and these rights should be respected by publications. Nevertheless, the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest.” and it also says “Those suffering from trauma or grief call for special consideration.”
- There is clear public interest in reporting and naming the perpetrator of such extreme violence, which to some extent overrides the victim’s right to privacy, as set out in Principle (2). The question is whether the NZ Herald should have done more to shield Ms A from further trauma caused by the publication of the story while still reporting enough detail to give the public a clear idea of the severity of the offending.
- The NZ Herald made the correct decision not to publish Ms A’s name and to withhold some details. They believed they had done enough to make sure people who did not know what had happened to Ms A would not be able to identify her. The Council agrees that a potential employer, for example, would not be able to identify her from a simple Google search. It is obvious from Ms A’s complaint however that some people who had not known all the details of her situation found out more information than she had been comfortable revealing herself, and the Council acknowledges the hurt this has caused. However, none of the details were suppressed in court, and the public interest in the severity of the offending meant that the NZ Herald was within its rights to publicise these details. There is a difficult balancing act here – the NZ Herald could have omitted more details from the story, but by doing so they would have risked portraying the offending as less serious than it was, and that would not have been in the public interest. It was important for the offender to have his name published and for the extreme nature of the violence to be in the public domain. The further hurt that Ms A feels is an unfortunate consequence of this.
- Ms A complained that she did not know the story was going to be published, but the NZ Herald did their best to ensure she knew about the article and cannot be blamed if those in authority did not pass this on.
- There was also no indication during either the court case, or from the Crown when they were informed the story was running, that the story could put Ms A in danger, so the Council believes the NZ Herald could not have expected the story would increase the risk of retribution to Ms A.
- The complaint under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and Principle (2) Privacy is not upheld. Although the Media Council did not uphold the complaint, it commends Ms A for her courage in submitting a thought-provoking complaint that gave useful insight into the effect of the article from her perspective.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon. Raynor Asher (Chair), Rosemary Barraclough, Marie Shroff, Richard Pamatatau, Alison Thom, Ben France-Hudson, Clio Francis, Hank Schouten, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, and Tim Watkin.
Council members Scott Inglis and Katrina Bennett declared conflicts of interest with the complaint and did not vote.