Oliver Sanderson against The Press
Case Number: 3705
Council Meeting: 3 February 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: The Press
Principle: Children and Young People
Ruling Categories: Children and Young People
Overview
1. On 4 November 2024 The Press published a story titled, Religious group booted from Catholic Diocese takes over historic North Canterbury chapel. Mr Oliver Sanderson complains that a photo in the article breaches Principle (3) Children and Young People.
The Article
2. This article discusses the acquisition of a historic church by “a controversial order”, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, for use as a mission. It also provides an overview of the recent history of this group of priests and their congregation.
3. Following a Vatican investigation into serious allegations, including sexual grooming and unauthorised exorcisms, the Bishop of the Christchurch Catholic Diocese informed the group’s members that they must vacate the diocese within 90 days. Additionally, four of the group's priests were prohibited from celebrating Mass or performing other “priestly ministries” outside their religious community.
4. The article includes seven photographs. The first, located directly beneath the heading in the online version, depicts a group of adults and children standing outside the church, with several faces clearly visible. The other photos show adults standing near the church, associated priests, the Bishop and old and recent photos of the church.
The Complaint
5. Mr Sanderson says that he makes this complaint on behalf of the parents of one of the children pictured in the article, claiming that the best interests of the children in the photograph have been over-ridden, breaching Principle (3). He says there are four children shown in the photo in question. They are aged 12, 13, 14 and 15 and that two of those children are very clearly visibly identifiable and another is somewhat identifiable.
6. Mr Sanderson says that it is not in the best interest of those children to be identifiable in a controversial article that references allegations of sexual grooming. He says that the photo has caused harm and distress to those children.
7. The complainant does not see that The Press has demonstrated an exceptional degree of public interests to justify the publishing of this photo of the children.
8. The parents, on whose behalf Mr Sanderson is acting, ask that The Press remove the photo that includes the children and not publish any further photos of children associated with their church unless parental permission is given. They also ask for the justification in publishing the photo when it was foreseeable that it would cause harm and distress to the children concerned.
The Response
9. The Press respond that the article is primarily about the acquisition of the church and that “the sole reference to sexual grooming
allegations is merely in passing.” They say that there is no suggestion that anyone featured in the photos is a perpetrator or victim and
that the photo in question was taken from a public place and shows families attending church.
10. The Press does not accept that the article is a controversial news story but rather about the religious group’s purchase of the historic
church. They publish group and crowd photos of children all of the time and that given these children were in a public space then there was
no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Discussion
11. Principle (3) states that “In cases involving children and young people editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public
interest to override the interests of the child or young person.” This raises the questions of have the children pictured in the article
been harmed by the publication and is there exceptional public interest that would justify the publication of the photo anyway.
12. While the sale of a historic church may capture public interest, it is the surrounding controversy involving Sons of the Most Holy
Redeemers that defines this story. Central to this controversy are serious allegations of sexual grooming and exorcisms, which have resulted
in sanctions imposed on both the priests and the congregation.
13. To associate the identifiable children in the photograph with a story about sexual offending and exorcisms has the potential to cause
harm, particularly in creating stress and anxiety for them. The children in this case are old enough to know that readers might wonder if
they have been victimised within their church. This could be disturbing and stressful for children to believe that people they know may be
talking about them in this way and in this case the complainant advises that the children have been distressed by the publication.
14. This is not the same as a photo of a crowd of happy children being entertained by buskers as The Press suggests in its response. The difference is the link between these children and the controversy associated with the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer and the potential for, and actual harm to the children in being connected to that story.
15. The overall article is certainly of public interest and could have conveyed its message without the photo that included the children.
16. The photo of identifiable children in this article was not in their best interest, and there was no significant public interest to justify its publication. The complaint is upheld on Principle (3).