Search

The Press Council considered a complaint from CASPA, a child welfare and care service provider, about an article published by The Courier Mail on 13 March 2021, headed “Tragic flood dad on kid sex charge” in print, and “Father who lost wife and two children charged with child sex offence” online. The article reported that a “Father who lost his wife and two of his children…is charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl.” The article went on to state that the father “is facing serious criminal charges. He has been charged with six offences including two counts of having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl and supplying and possessing cannabis.” The article also reported on the father’s family history and in particular that a car accident, which he was not involved in, had resulted in the death of his wife and two of this three children. In reporting the circumstances of the accident, the article named the surviving child. The article did not infer that the child was a victim of the alleged crimes. The complainant said that until the article was published, the child was not aware of the criminal charges laid against the father. In addition, as a consequence of naming the child, school friends, teachers and the general community knew that the child’s father was charged with child sex and drug offences. The complainant said the pain and shame experienced by the child who is fragile and vulnerable has been extreme and may have contributed to a significant deterioration in the child’s mental health and the breakdown of family care placements. The complainant said it was unnecessary to name the child and that the intrusion into the child’s privacy, the substantial risk to the child’s health and safety and the obvious distress caused by the report, is not outweighed by any public interest. The complainant also said that attempts to resolve the complaint directly with the publication were unsuccessful. The publication acknowledged that the name of the child should not have been published and when the matter was brought to its attention it took steps to remove the child’s name from the online article as well as its digital archive. The publication said it offered the complainant a written undertaking that it would not use the child’s name in any future articles in relation to court proceedings concerning the father. During the Adjudication hearing, the complainant said that the charges against the father in relation to alleged sexual offences had been withdrawn. The complainant also indicated that a court suppression order preventing the naming of the father in relation to criminal charges laid against him had recently been made. In light of this the publication undertook to take the article down. The publication also said that it will proceed to issue the child with a written apology. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5), or causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety (General Principle 6), unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. They also require that unless otherwise restricted by law or court order, open court hearings are matters of public record and can be reported by the press. Such reports need to be fair and balanced. They should not identify relatives or friends of people accused or convicted of a crime unless the reference to them is necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings (Privacy Principle 7). The Council acknowledges that the child’s name has been referred to in previous articles concerning the tragic events involving the child’s family. Nonetheless, the Council considers that given the serious nature of the allegations that were made against the child’s father, there was a reasonable expectation that the child’s privacy should not be intruded upon. The Council also considers that in the circumstances, the reporting of the child’s name was not sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh this expectation of privacy. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 5 was breached in this respect. The Council also considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress or a substantial risk to health or safety. Identifying the child in a report concerning allegations of a serious criminal nature against the child’s father, was likely to cause substantial distress. The Council notes that publishing the child’s name was unnecessary and did not add to the report of court proceedings and there was no sufficient public interest justification in doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was also breached in this respect. As to Privacy Principle 7, the Council considers the inclusion of the child’s name was unnecessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the alleged crimes. Accordingly, Privacy Principle 7 was breached. The Council acknowledges that the article has now been taken down and welcomes the publication’s apology to the child. The Council notes that apart from finding that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice, this matter highlights for all publications the need to exercise great care and respect when naming children in articles concerning criminal matters. In this context, the Council notes the comments of the complainant concerning the distress this article has caused the child. 

Relevant Council Standards

 Publications must take reasonable steps to:

5. Avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
7. Privacy Principle 7: Sensitive personal information

In accordance with Principle 6 of the Council's Statement of General Principles, media organisations should take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. Members of the public caught up in newsworthy events should not be exploited. A victim or bereaved person has the right to refuse or terminate an interview or photographic session at any time. Unless otherwise restricted by law or court order, open court hearings are matters of public record and can be reported by the press. Such reports need to be fair and balanced. They should not identify relatives or friends of people accused or convicted of crime unless the reference to them is necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Daily Telegraph headed “Transgender Sport Safety and Fairness Concerns Raised by Female Volleyball Players” (Online) on 27 September 2021. The news article reported “Female community sporting groups are raising concerns about the issue of transgender athletes playing in women’s competitions, saying officials need to begin addressing the issue and lay out clear guidelines. It comes in the wake of a furore in Queensland over an all-male netball team sweeping to victory against all female teams in an under-18 competition.” The article included comments attributed to the president of a local NSW volleyball association, saying “she was very welcoming of transgender players, but felt it would be fairer if they played in existing mixed game competitions where both sexes already play together.” The article also included comments from a co-founder of Save Women’s Sports Australasia who said, “Not only are we being asked to make sacrifices for men who self-declare a special identity, we are now being asked to sacrifice our own competitions to boys and men who simply want to play in our sports codes” and “The evidence unequivocally demonstrates men retain a significant performance advantage even if they have a ‘female gender identity’ and artificially reduce their testosterone levels.” In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that while the article includes comments from people who express concern with transgender athletes playing in women’s competitions, it does not include any balancing comments from a transgender athlete, an LGBTIQA+ sporting association or any other individual or organisation that is supportive of transgender participation in women’s sporting competitions. In response, the publication acknowledged the absence of comments from an individual or group in support of transgender athletes in women’s sporting competitions but noted the difficulty in obtaining comment from individuals or organisations in relation to such matters. The publication also noted that the Council has previously ruled that not every article always requires complete balance of all competing viewpoints. The publication said it makes editing decisions based on what the Council has previously ruled and that it would be unfair and inconsistent with past Council findings if it did not rule the same way in this instance. The publication also said that while, in this instance, there is an absence of balancing comments, it has previously published a range of stories which canvassed sensitive issues and presented differing views on a variety of transgender issues as part of its overall coverage. The publication said it is accepted journalistic practice that balance on a subject can be achieved through the publication of previous and subsequent articles. It also noted that in response to the complaint, it offered to publish a letter to the editor to allow an alternative view to be put forward. 

Conclusion

 The Council notes that General Principle 3 requires publications to take reasonable steps to “ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance”, and acknowledges that it has previously stated that this does not always require complete, or almost complete balance when reporting on a subject. However, the Council also considers that publications should be especially mindful of the need for balance when reporting on matters of important social debate. In certain instances, where a single article is part of a series covering a particular topic, the requisite balance might be achieved through the previous or subsequent publication of articles and letters to the editor that put forward alternative views. The Council notes however, that subsequent articles that seek to ensure balance on a subject, ought to be published in sufficiently close proximity to the date of the initial article and contain sufficient detail to inform readers that there have been a range of perspectives published on the subject. In this context, the Council does not consider the absence of balance in the article the subject of the complaint was addressed by the other articles put forward by the publication. The Council notes that the articles put forward by the publication would not enlighten readers that there is a range of competing views on transgender participation in women’s sport. The Council also notes that none of the articles were published in close temporal proximity to the relevant article, and further, that only one article contained comments that could be reasonably described as being supportive of one transgender athlete’s participation in a women’s sporting competition. The Council also notes that, notwithstanding the publication’s assertion that it was difficult to obtain comment from individuals or organisations that support transgender participation in sporting competitions, the publication sought and included comments from two individuals critical of transgender women’s participation in women’s sporting competitions. The Council also notes that the article contained links to further online articles that were also critical of transgender participation in women’s sporting competitions. Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3. In relation to the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor, the Council has previously stated that while letters can be sometimes used as a remedial tool to address balance, they will not always be an adequate response by a publication to inaccuracy, unfairness or lack of balance in a problematic article or series of articles. 

Relevant Council Standards

 Publications must take reasonable steps to:

3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by articles published by news.com.au headed “Australia’s most sadistic child killer applies for parole, sparking warning from original investigator" on 26 February 2021 and “Cop Reveals Creepy Love Letters Sent from Child Murderer's Prison Cell" on 27 February 2021. The 26 February 2021 article reported that “Australia’s most sadistic child killer ‘will kill again’ if freed, warns the detective who helped put the ‘most perverted evil human I have ever come across’ behind bars.” It reported that “Robin Reid is again up for parole consideration next month, 39 years after he kidnapped, tortured, shaved and buried alive Peter Aston, 13.” The article referred to Reid’s accomplice in the crime as his “transgender soldier lover” who the article reported “began hormone treatment” while in prison and changed their name by deed poll. The 27 February 2021 article reported that a “detective still haunted by the case of a perverted child killer has revealed how the sadistic criminal sent him twisted ‘love’ letters from prison” and that he is “being considered for parole almost 40 years after he and his transgender soldier lover kidnapped two boys and tortured and buried alive Peter Aston, 13, before killing him in 1982.” The article went on to report the “two men were lovers”, with his accomplice “harbouring a desire to become a woman, and Reid a Satanist and sadist with a desire to torture and kill a male as ‘sacrifice’”. The article included a photograph of the victim with the caption “Murder victim Peter Aston was beaten, shaved, tortured and buried alive by Reid and his transgender soldier lover.” In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the articles complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint expressed concern that the articles’ prominent references to Reid’s accomplice being a transgender person, including images of them were prejudicial given that their gender identity was not reported to be a relevant factor at the time the crime was committed. In response, the publication acknowledged that the crime for which Reid’s accomplice was convicted occurred prior to transitioning to a woman and that the references to their transgender status were accordingly irrelevant. The publication also said that when the complaint was brought to its attention, it initially understood that amendments to the articles to remove most of the transgender references were sufficient to address the concerns raised. Nonetheless, the publication said it accepts that there are aspects of the articles that infer a link between the accomplice’s transgender status and commission of the crime. The publication added that there is ongoing training in its newsroom on the need to report transgender issues in an appropriate and respectful manner. The publication said that given this training, and increased awareness in the newsroom, if the same articles were written now the irrelevant references to transgender status would not have been included. 

Conclusion

 The Council notes that Reid’s accomplice transitioned to a woman sometime after the crime for which they were convicted. As such, the Council considers the transgender references in the articles were irrelevant. The Council also notes that no information was presented to support the statement in the 27 February 2021 article that around the time of the crime, the accomplice was “harbouring a desire to become a woman”. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3. The Council notes that there was a significant public interest in the public being informed about the parole hearing of Reid given the seriousness of the crime he committed. However, the Council does not consider that there was sufficient public interest in the prominent references to his accomplice’s transgender status, which was not reported to have a connection with the crime for which they were convicted. The Council considers that the combined effect of the references to the accomplice’s transgender status together with the statement that, at the time of the crime, the accomplice harboured “a desire to become a woman”, could lead some readers to conclude that there was a connection between transgender status and the commission of the crime reported in the articles. The Council considers that in prominently referring to Reid’s accomplice’s transgender status in the articles, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was not sufficient public interest to justify doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6. The Council welcomes the publication’s subsequent amendments to the article to remove the transgender references, its acknowledgement that the transgender references were irrelevant and its newsroom education. The Council emphasises, however, that publications are obliged to take reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice at the time of publication. In this context, the Council has repeatedly stated that publications should exercise great care not to place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age. 

Relevant Council Standards

 Publications must take reasonable steps to: 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. 6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Julianne Toogood concerning an article published in the Cairns Post headed “Council’s legal bill revealed” in print and “Cassowary Coast Council to release legal costs information” online on 8 August 2020. The print article reported “DOCUMENTS proving a Far Northern council’s legal matters are covered by insurance have been made public after the Office of the Information Commissioner ruled in favour of a previously denied right to information request”. The online article reported “Documents detailing a Far Northern council’s legal expenditure have been made public after the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) ruled in favour of a previously denied right to information request.” The article went on to report that a “Cassowary Coast spokeswoman said the information would confirm the CEO’s defamation case was covered by council’s insurance provider ….” The article quoted a spokeswoman from the Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) saying: “We are grateful that the Office of the Information Commissioner deems certain documents to be of sufficient public interest that it should be released to offer assurance to our community”. The complainant said the article is false and misleading. The complainant said the publication had relied solely on a CCRC press release and it should have recognised that the CRCC CEO would benefit directly from false information being published. The complainant said the publication should not have only relied on a media release and should have taken additional steps to query the accuracy of the information it had been provided. She said that the publication ought to have been aware that the information provided by the CCRC should be checked given it had reported on public protest rallies about the CEO’s use of public money to fund his personal defamation claim against herself and her husband. She also said the documents released by the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) do not prove the insurer is covering the CEO’s defamation claim, and that the publication ought to have contacted her for comment. In response, the publication said the article was based upon a press release from the CCRC concerning documents being released by it as a result of a decision by the OIC. The publication said that, as indicated in the press release, the Council received a sum of money from its insurer in relation to a number of legal matters concerning the complainant.  The publication said the documentation referred to in the press release indicated that the defamation proceedings would be covered by insurance. It said the complainant appears to take issue with the fact that the article does not state that the costs paid by the insurer do not include the CEO’s defamation claim against the complainant. The publication said, however, the press release upon which the article is based does not make this distinction. The publication said the article is an accurate and fair report of the CCRC press release. It also said there was no requirement to seek a comment from the complainant given the article was based on a press release concerning a decision by the OIC and the documentation that would be released by the Council as a result of that decision. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach (General Principles 2 and 4). The Council considers that publications are entitled to draw heavily on a press release provided that in doing so they comply with the Council's Standards of Practice. It emphasises that any material taken from a press release should be presented in such a way that facts or opinion being asserted by the issuer of the release are clearly distinguishable from those being asserted by the publication itself. In this context, the Council notes that the publication’s statement in the print article only, that documents “proving” the CRCC’s legal matters are covered by insurance was not attributed to the CCRC press release. Therefore, in this instance, the publication went beyond reporting on the content of the press release to affirming its accuracy without taking reasonable steps to confirm the content of the press release was, in fact, accurate. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principe 1 in this respect. The Council notes that a subsequent amendment to the online article removed the words ‘documents proving.’ Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 2. In relation to General Principles 3 and 4, the Council does not consider that the publication was required to contact the complainant for comment. The Council accepts that the article is based on the press release by the CRCC in response to a decision by the OIC. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principles 3 and 4.

The Press Council considered a complaint about an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 11 February 2021 in print headed "HE’S JUST A GOOD GUY" on the front page and continuing on pages 6 and 7 and online headed "Real estate agent Karl Howard took Viagra before alleged sword attack" on 11 February 2021. The front page reported that a “former girlfriend” of “the real estate agent accused of a samurai sword attack on a woman at his home has told of her concern for him as he remains in hospital following his arrest, stating he is a ‘good guy’”. The print article went on to report that the complainant is “herself an agent” who “told The Daily Telegraph: ‘We’re very worried for him … he’s scared. ‘We’ve known each other for a very long time’”. The front page included a prominent photograph of the complainant next to the headline “EXCLUSIVE Ex-Partner of agent accused of samurai sword attack struggles to comprehend the allegations”. Page 7 included a prominent photograph of the complainant below the caption “We’re very worried for him…he’s scared”. The online article reported “A prominent real estate agent who police allege choked one woman before turning a samurai sword on another had taken four Viagra pills and had a ‘sexual intent’ before the bloody ordeal at the $2 million home he shared with his former partner, a court has heard”. The article, which also included a prominent photograph of the complainant, went on to include further details of the alleged assault by the agent against two women. The complainant, who the article identified as the ‘ex-partner’ of the accused, said the journalist “broke confidentiality” and acted in a completely unethical manner with regards to the story. The complainant said the journalist phoned her several times prior to publication requesting a comment. The complainant also said she refused the journalist’s request for her to pose for a photograph. The complainant said the journalist’s manner was borderline harassment, and that she only agreed to provide a small comment on the proviso that it was confidential and that her name was explicitly not to be included. The complainant said the journalist agreed to this condition and that a colleague was a witness to this agreement. The complainant said that once she became aware she had been identified in the online article and prior to the publication of the print article, she pleaded with the journalist to de-identify her in the article. The complainant said the publication proceeded to publish the print article which included her comments and prominent photographs. The complainant said the article has caused her an enormous amount of stress and unwanted media attention and that since publication of the article, she has received calls from strangers leaving messages threatening and harassing her. The complainant said the reported allegations of assault had nothing to do with her and the inclusion of her photograph, name and business in the article is damaging to her career, emotional state and safety. In response, the publication said the journalist who spoke with the complainant denies strongly the claim that an arrangement was made concerning confidentiality and also does not accept in any way that any of the phone calls to the complainant bordered on harassment. The publication said the journalist kept a log and contemporaneous notes of the calls noting that some lasted several minutes, which it said demonstrates the journalist and the complainant had an ongoing dialogue and were talking completely amicably all day.  The publication said that the complainant was not harassed, rather the journalist spoke to the complainant on numerous occasions to ensure the quotes attributed to her were correct and that she understood they were quotes that would be attributed to her. The publication said no agreement was made to keep the complainant’s name out of the article and no agreement was made not to publish any photographs of the complainant. It said that after the article was first published online the complainant put the journalist on loudspeaker during a call, and the complainant claimed she had never spoken to the journalist or agreed to any of the quotes despite their ongoing dialogue. The publication also said it only published photographs that were available publicly online via her public Facebook profile and from images on her real estate agency website. The publication said that it had amended aspects of the online article to address some of the complainant’s concerns. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 5) and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). They also require publications to avoid publishing material which has been gathered by deceptive or unfair means, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 7). The Council notes there are significant differences between the views of the complainant and the publication as to what was said concerning ‘confidentiality’ and as to whether the complainant’s comments were ‘on the record’. The Council also notes that due to the absence of information to enable it to conclusively determine what was said, the Council is unable to form conclusions on this aspect of the complaint. However, it is not disputed that the journalist clearly identified herself as a journalist for The Daily Telegraph; stated that she was investigating the reported assault; and that conversations did take place between the complainant and the journalist. The Council also notes that at the time of publication, the complainant’s personal information, including her profession and where she was employed, was publicly available. Although the Council does not accept that all information that is in the public domain will necessarily diminish an individuals’ expectation of privacy, in this instance it is satisfied that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s expectation of privacy, noting that the personal information was publicly available and the occurrence of conversations between the complainant and the journalist. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 5. In relation to General Principle 6, the Council notes the complainant was not in any way connected to the alleged assault. Accordingly, the Council considers the article was likely to and did cause substantial distress to the complainant. Although there is undoubted public interest in reporting on the assault allegations, there was no public interest in including large and prominent photograhs of the complainant, particularly on the front page of the print edition when the complainant had made it clear to the publication that she did not wish to be photographed for the story.  Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 6. As to General Principle 7, given that the complainant was aware that she was talking to a journalist, the Council concludes that the material published was not gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 7. However, the Council reminds journalists that it is best practice to clearly identify when a conversation moves from 'off the record' to 'on the record’. 

Note:

 Publications must take reasonable steps to:

5. Avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
7. Avoid publishing material which has been gathered by deceptive or unfair means, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by Daily Mail Australia online on 25 November 2020 headed “Student artist sparks fury by saying war crimes report ‘shows Australia’s character’ and arguing mental health helplines shouldn’t be displayed for struggling veterans”. The article reported that “a non-binary queer youth worker whose parents are Afghan refugees, wrote a scathing article for university-funded literary magazine Meanjin. [The student’s] comments referred to the Brereton report into alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan that was made public last week.” The article also included several photographs of the student attributed to the student’s Instagram account. In response to a complaint, the Press Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing to substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The complainant, who was not the subject of the article, raised concerns that the repeated, prominent references to the student’s sexual orientation and gender identity were not relevant to the article written for the university literary magazine and were therefore not in the public interest to report. The complaint also said these references, together with the photographs included in the article, were salacious and contribute to substantial prejudice against persons of diverse gender or sexuality. In response, the publication said the article does not say or imply that the student has no right to comment or have an opinion on the alleged war crimes in Afghanistan because they are non-binary and queer. The publication said that the article as a whole is focused on the student’s comments made about the alleged war crimes.  The publication also said that it ‘reached out’ to the student for comment after it became aware the student had shared the article on social media. It said that although the student did not accept an offer for comment, it noted that the messages exchange were friendly and no concerns were expressed by the student with the article’s content. The publication noted that the student had the opportunity to raise any concerns about the reference to their gender or sexuality in the article and they chose not to comment. In this context, the publication questioned if the student was offended by the article’s content. Nonetheless, the publication said that in order to remedy the complaint, it amended the online article by removing the words “non-binary queer” and two photographs of the student. 

Conclusion

 The Council notes that General Principle 3 requires publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council accepts that the student identifies as non-binary and queer and acknowledges the publication’s comments that the student raised no concerns with the article in this respect. The Council considers, although prominently identifying the student as non-binary and queer could lead some readers to conclude that the views of the student should be criticised on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics, on balance the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the presentation of factual material in the article was reasonably fair and balanced. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication complied with General Principle 3. The Council notes that given the student’s gender identity and sexuality were not reported as being a relevant factor for their views expressed in the article, prominently identifying the student as non-binary and queer, could lead some readers to conclude that the views of the student should be criticised on the basis of irrelevant, personal characteristics and could contribute to substantial prejudice to others who also identify as either non-binary and/or queer. The Council considers that in prominently referring to the student’s sexual orientation and gender identity, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was not sufficient public interest justifying doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the article breached General Principle 6. The Council welcomes the publication’s subsequent amendments to the article, which included the removal of two photographs of the student, and the deletion of all references to the student’s gender identity and sexuality from the article. However, it emphasises that publications are obliged to take reasonable steps comply with its Standards of Practice at the time of publication. In this context, the Council has consistently stated that publications should exercise great care not to place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council: Publications must take reasonable steps to: 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. 6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.