Adjudication No. 341 (August 1987) [1987] APC 28

ADJUDICATION No. 341 (August 1987)

The principal of Mosman High School and the Council for Defence of Government Schools complain concerning an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 March 1987 under the headline "The Gang That Raped Mosman."

The article begins in this way:

For five years a gang called the Z boys terrorised the rich kids of Mosman.

Anne Howell spoke to its members today and its victims to recreate this account of their reign.

The article recounts the criminal activities during the late 1970s by a gang

of five boys described as students of Mosman High School. There are frequent references to the school throughout the article, and, in an accompanying article, it is stated that the parent of the leader of the gang, one Fernando Montes, who died of a heroin overdose, sent her children to a good school, Mosman High.

The principal, and a teacher of the school at the same time state this, and refer to the absence of his name either on the school register, or the mathematics faculty register (mathematics was and is a compulsory subject at Mosman High).

A complainant states that if the other members of the gang, who are not fully identified in the article, were ever students at Mosman High, it is likely that they were former students at the relevant time. In any event, they say, the article by dwelling on the affiliation to Mosman High has seriously damaged the school as it is today including its staff and students.

In reply the paper states that the journalist was a student at the school, although school records suggest that her period of enrolment was shorter than stated by the paper. The Journalist states she specifically recalls that the leader of the gang was a student of Mosman High, that her story was based on fact, and was carefully checked, the reference to the gang's and some of the victims' affiliation to Mosman High was factual and was not intended to besmirch or damage the school.

A number of letters were submitted to the paper protesting about the report. In reply to one letter, the editor wrote:

It is true that we have had a number of letters - most of them have not been for publication, but ones that I have answered in person.

None seemed to me to be the sort of letters that would be of general interest for publication. They either sought more information or argued about the veracity of the facts.

The Herald is not in the business of censorship and if you or your colleagues would like to get together a letter for publication, then clearly I would be interested in publishing it.

While the Council welcomes the editor's invitation of a letter intended for publication, it cannot agree that because a letter "... argued about the veracity of the facts..." it would not constitute "... the sort of letters that would be of general interest for publication." The Principal, in her last letter to the Council, expresses dissatisfaction on the "... failure of the Sydney Morning Herald to admit any errors in reporting; not a single letter has been published to reveal our facts and/or opinions ..." Clearly the Herald does not admit any errors, and is difficult to rule conclusively on the veracity of the facts in question. Therefore it was only fair and just and in the public interest for the views of those outraged by the article to be aired, including those views which challenged the veracity of the article. The Herald was remiss in not publishing those views.

To this extent the complaint is upheld.