Adjudication No. 15 (June 1977) [1977] APC 10

Adjudication No. 15 (June 1977)

The Lost Dogs' Home of North Melbourne complained of a series of articles in the Melbourne Herald. The articles began on March 12 and continued on March 15, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 28. The first article, by a special reporter, described the death of a dog in the Lethanair Machine, a decompression chamber at the home.

It stated that the air was sucked from the chamber and that it took from 20 to 60 seconds for the dogs to become unconscious during which time they were convulsing. After quoting from various people both against and in support of the use of the machine, the reporter stated that nobody could convince him that the dogs he saw killed were not in pain. He added that the dogs were convulsing and that the Lethanair must go.

The Herald followed this report with an editorial which stated that the Lethanair killed dogs by sucking the air from their lungs. It described the process as cruel andthat the argument that the machine was cheaper and more convenient than alternatives had a concentration camp kind of ruthlessness about it.

A further article consisting of an interview with an RSPCA lethaliser in Sydney repeated the claim that the Lethanair machine sucked the air from a dog's lungs.

The home, in its letter of complaint, maintained that the article could be interpreted as portraying the manager and staff of the home as callous killers of dogs. It stated that the newspaper had been provided with a written scientific article from Dr. Brooks, of the School of Veterinary Science, Melbourne University, which explained the working of the machine as to its scientific and humane effects on the dogs and quoting scientific documents from overseas. But the Herald did not publish this article.

The home took particular exception to the statement that the machine sucks air from the dogs' lungs. It maintained that this was not the case and that the dogs died from hypoxia - a situation similar to that experienced by pilots at high altitudes without the necessary oxygen equipment. It quoted expert opinion that, far from feeling pain, this was a pleasurable experience.

The home maintained that as a charitable trust it relied for much of its receipts upon donations and legacies and that it was applying to the State Government for capital funds. It alleged that reports in the Herald were unfair and damaging to its prospects of obtaining funds from these sources.

The Herald published a considerable amount of material in favour of the use of the Lethanair machine, including on the leader page a letter from Mr. H. R. Mackenzie, Manager of the home, in which the home's case appeared to be fully and adequately presented.

However, negotiations between the Herald and the home which continued for a long period broke down over the home's insistence that the Herald retract in an editorial the substance of the allegations it had made against the home.

The home also provided a copy of a report .by. the Victorian Statute Law Revision Committee (a Committee of the Victorian State Parliament) which gave by a majority of five to three, approval to use of the machine.

The Herald gave publicity to this report. However, it was unwilling to make any further retraction of its allegations, maintaining that it was not satisfied that it was wrong in the view it took about the machine.

The Council realises that the controversy has been most unfortunate for an institution which deserves great support and usually receives that support from the Herald and other papers.

The Council is not adjudicating on the scientific or other arguments for or against the use of the machine.

That matter, however, is clearly one of considerable and often emotional public debate; the Herald joined the debate in that manner.

However, the principle must be maintained that a newspaper is entitled to take the side it thinks right in any matter of genuine controversy and does not fall short of proper standards of journalism especially if it gives fair publicity to the opposite point of view.

This, in the opinion of the Council, the Herald clearly did in the present case. The Council considers that it would be unreasonable to expect a newspaper to retract editorially a view that it had expressed and still maintains 1s in fact correct.

In the end the concern of the home is that the authority of the Herald is brought to bear against the home's view of the propriety of using the machine. The results may be unfortunate for the home, but the newspaper's action is not open to criticism.

The complaint is dismissed.