Tony Bull against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3719
Council Meeting: 17 March 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle: Discrimination and Diversity
Ruling Categories: Discrimination
Overview
1. On 27 December 2024 the NZ Herald published an article online with the headline “Sex Offender Liam Strange home for Christmas
after prison sentence switched for home detention”.
A summary of the article also appeared online on the Herald homepage under an alternative headline: ‘Rich white privilege’: Sex
offender home for Christmas.
A print version of the story was headlined “Woman’s warning as her stalker walks free”. The complaint is considered
under Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity which reads: “Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual
orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the
public interest and publications may report and express opinions in these areas. Publications should not, however, place gratuitous emphasis
on any such category in their reporting.”
The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article said Liam Strange, who had been sentenced to over 2 years in prison for sexual violation and stalking, had now been released by the court to nine months home detention, under various conditions. The victim had expressed to the reporter her adverse opinion of this decision of the courts, including saying it “reeked of ‘classic rich white privilege’”. “I honestly expected more from the justice system, especially with the new stalking laws. He stalked me with a tracking device. It feels like ‘white male privilege’. If it was anyone else who couldn’t afford to pay the legal fees they would’ve been behind bars for two years, two months and two weeks”. The article went on to describe graphically and in some detail Liam Strange’s offending behaviour towards the victim, which led to his conviction for sexual violation and stalking and the prison sentence.
The Complaint
3. Tony Bull complained to the Herald that the headline unnecessarily described the offender as not only rich and privileged, but also white. He said the victim was entitled to her opinion, but the NZ Herald headline including the word white was the issue he was complaining of. The offender’s race had nothing to do with their financial position or the crime. He said the headline was blatant racism which was socially divisive.
The Response
4. The NZ Herald initially rejected the complainant’s suggestion of racism or a social divide. In their view the victim was entitled to her opinion, which was based on the offender’s financial ability to fight his sentence and subsequently get it reduced. In a subsequent formal response, the NZ Herald noted the article was straightforward reporting of the workings of the justice system, that the offender had not responded to an invitation to comment, and that the NZ Herald would have been remiss not to report on the victim’s reaction to the change of sentence. The NZ Herald said “white privilege” is a well understood concept and the existence of institutional racism in the justice system in New Zealand is supported across various academic, Law Commission and public service sources. The Herald says the story reports on one specific case and is not divisive. No other similar complaints were received. The headline falls well short of gratuitous emphasis on race.
The Discussion
5. The story is about a controversial issue of crime, and the victim’s views of the inappropriateness of the punishment, which are matters of public interest. The phrase ‘rich white privilege’ (or similar) covers a key element of this particular story. As the headline is compliant with the Council’s Headline Principle (6), in that it accurately and fairly conveys a key element of the story, the Council has not considered it under that principle, but rather under Principle (7), Discrimination and Diversity, as cited in paragraph 1 above.
6. The complainant says his concern is confined to the allegedly racist use of the word “white” in the phrase “rich white privilege” which appears in one of the three headlines used for the NZ Herald story. The phrase appears in single quote marks in the homepage headline, clearly the victim’s words being quoted. The NZ Herald used a variety of headlines for this story in a number of news locations. The use of the phrase in the homepage summary headline, including the word ‘white’, gives it added prominence for the reader of the homepage. The question is whether this amounts to gratuitous emphasis on race.
7. The Council has considered a number of cases in the past (rulings 3282 in June 2023 and 2989 in February 2021 which are on the NZ Media Council website) where the issue of whether the use of the word ‘white’ is racist has arisen and has given weight to the following considerations. A basic remit of the Media Council is to uphold freedom of expression. Fundamental to this is reporting on robust public debate where people are free to express critical opinions. Principle (7) provides that issues of colour are legitimate subjects for public discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest but should not be given gratuitous emphasis. The article reports the strong opinions and reaction of the victim to recent events in this case, where an offender convicted of her sexual violation and stalking has his sentence reduced in severity. The story is focused on the reduction of the sentence and the victim’s reaction. The headline reflects that focus.
8. The phrase “rich white privilege” or a similar expression is a familiar linkage of words and ideas and is in common usage when discrimination and diversity are under discussion. It therefore lacks the particular impact the word ‘white’ may have if it appeared on its own in this context. The NZ Herald was quoting the victim’s words and phrasing, and it could be argued it would have been misrepresentation to edit out the word ‘white’ from her comments. This was her genuinely held opinion and the NZ Herald has the right to publish this, particularly in a context where the criticism is more of the justice system than a particular person. The various headlines used also suggest that the NZ Herald was not seeking to emphasise the racial aspect of the story. The Council agrees that this was a straightforward report of robust opinions about matters of public interest.
Decision:
9. The Council considers the headline acceptable in these particular circumstances. In our view the
use of the word ‘white’ in the phrase “rich white privilege”, as a clearly marked quote from the victim, does not amount to gratuitous
emphasis on race in the context of this story. The complaint under Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity is not upheld by unanimous
decision.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Guy MacGibbon, Tim Watkin, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff and Richard Pamatatau.
Council member Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.