Adjudication No. 435 (March 1990) [1990] APC 7

ADJUDICATION No. 435 (March 1990)

The Australian Press Council today partially upheld one ground of a three-part complaint by the Minister for Health & Community Services of the Northern Territory, about an article "FAMILIES BITTER AS KILLERS WALK FREE" in the Sunday Territorian on 10 December 1989. The complainant protested first to the paper and then to the Press Council that the article was mischievous and incorrect. In particular, he complained that the allegation that one of the "killers" was allowed out on trips was unfounded and the sub-heading was not supported by the story.

Firstly, the article alleged that killers were being allowed free to walk the streets of Darwin. One, McClymans, was reported as having shot a man dead on a cattle station. He was described as being in the psychiatric ward of the hospital, but the belief is reported that he had been allowed out on shopping trips with unarmed male nurses. The Minister said there was no evidence to support this claim.

The newspaper says that two sources within the hospital claimed that McClymans had been out. Prison officers had confirmed they had been asked to escort him on outings and had refused. The Minister agrees that the latter was true, but occurred in relation to a failed application to be allowed out of the ward. The Minister's spokesman denied McClymans was allowed out on day trips, and this was reported in the article.

The Council is of course unable to determine whether or not McClymans had been allowed out, and therefore cannot fairly adjudicate on this aspect of the complaint.

There are two other persons mentioned in the article. One of these did not stand trial because it was thought that his self-inflicted injuries made it impossible for him to understand what was going on. The other was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity. One of the three is now behind bars. When questioned about the liberty of the other two, a spokesman for the Minister stated: "The treatment for these patients was decided after consultation among several doctors and specialists. We feel the community is not being put at any risk. These decisions are not taken lightly. The doctors must do what is best for the community as well as the patients so the balance is there. Bradley is a day patient and is therefore free to come and go. But McClymans hasn't been allowed out at all."

The sub-heading "Minister says: They're harmless" was the second principal ground of complaint. This sub-heading might lead a casual reader to conclude that the situations of all three persons were the result of decisions by the Minister. In fact, the Minister did not use the words attributed to him. The newspaper argues that the Minister's spokesman saying "We feel the community is not being put at any risk," is identical with the Minister saying "They're harmless"

The Council does not believe that this is a reasonable summary of what was stated on the Minister's behalf. This ground of complaint is upheld.

Finally, the Minister complains that the article failed to make a sufficient distinction between "unauthorised trips" and "court-directed freedom". The Council however concluded that the article does make this distinction, and therefore does not uphold the third ground.

Apart from the use of this sub-heading the Council believes that the newspaper was justified in publicising the community disquiet about the way in which the legal system treats criminals and persons with mental disorders who have committed violent acts. This is a matter for public debate.