Adjudication No. 505 (July 1991) [1991] APC 39

Adjudication No. 505 (July 1991)

The Council did not uphold a complaint brought by a firm of solicitors about the publication of a letter terminating its business relationship with a printing service owned by the newspaper's holding company, objecting to a paid advertisement in the newspaper.

In a paid advertisement in the North West Star on 23 January, Jim Body of the Hotel Body, Mount Isa, claimed that he and members of his staff had been attacked and assaulted by a group of "out of control" Aborigines from Mount Isa. The had, he said in his "open letter to the citizens of Mount Isa", banded together into a savage unruly mob who batter and punch people to the ground and kick them unmercifully in front of 150 of their friends and relations. "They bring their own legal aid people .. to confront the police and act as witnesses ...".

Letters supporting and opposing Jim Body were published and reactions to it reported in the paper's news columns.

A firm of solicitors, Jim Brooks and Associates, decided as a result of the advertisement to terminate its business relationship with Isa Printing Service. The firm wrote to the manager stating that the advertisement showed a complete lack of good faith and, because the service was a subsidiary of Carpentaria Newspapers Pty Ltd which publishes the North West Star, they would have no further business dealings with Isa Printing Service. The newspaper published the letter on 4 February 1991. It said the question of street violence concerned many residents of M. Isa, and the solicitors' decision was newsworthy. The solicitors argued that the letter was obtained by unfair means, was a breach of confidence and there was no overriding public interest which would justify publication. They knew that there was a relationship between the entities, indeed that was the precise reason for the boycott. However, they believed the entities were separate for taxation and other purposes. The paper, however, says that they are one entity for taxation purposes. The solicitors also say that the publication was in retaliation for a separate complaint made to the Council, which the newspaper denies.

The Council's principle 4 provides:

News obtained by dishonest or unfair means, or the publication of which would involve a breach of confidence, should not be published unless there is an overriding public interest.

The act of passing the letter between the entities was obviously voluntary, but without the consent of the solicitors. Would there have been any impropriety in passing the letter from the printing service to the newspaper had they been independent and at arm's length?

The Council does not see anything improper in this, as the newspaper would not have obtained the letter by unfair means; it would have been a mere passive recipient. There would be no breach of confidence involved [Dhatch] it is difficult how one could argue that there was a duty on the part either of the newspaper or of the printing service to observe confidentiality. The newspaper made a judgment that the letter was newsworthy, and there was certainly public interest in the allegation made by Mr Body. That interest was certainly sufficient to meet the "over-riding public interest" condition contained in principle 4. The newspaper published comment and letters on the advertisement including one from the directors of the West Queensland Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders for Legal Aid. There is no evidence that the publication was in retaliation against the separate complaint.

The Council has some concern that Mr Brook's letter appeared in the news columns of the paper without his having an opportunity to explain or elaborate on his statements for the broader and vastly different readership which the published letter would reach.

In not upholding the complaint, the council in no way rules on the accuracy or not of what was contained in the advertisement, not on the matters raised in the subsequent public debate. The only issue before the Council is whether the Council believes the newspaper behaved improperly in publishing the letter, and the Council believes that this charge is not sustained.