Adjudication No. 528 (November 1991) [1991] APC 62

Adjudication No. 528 (November 1991)

The Council considered a complaint by Mr David Eastman that his court appearance on certain charges was not balanced by reference to a complaint by him against the police. The Council believes that the subsequent publication and other reports provided a necessary balance.

Mr Eastman complained on 19 September to the Australian Press Council that in an article on 29 August 1991, referring to his appearance in court on charges of threatening to kill the ACT Attorney-General, the Canberra Times failed to refer to his barrister's reference to his complaint alleging that a senior police officer had visited him in prison. According to the transcript the barrister stated the complainant had alleged that the senior police officer, Commander Ninness, said,

"...'If I can't get you for this one thing, I'll get you for another. I'll destroy you bit by bit.' To which the defendant says he replied, 'I'll report your threats to the Ombudsman,' whereupon he says that Commander Ninness replied, 'The Ombudsman said he won't investigate any of your complaints.' I seek to put that on the record at his first appearance."

This matter, together with a summary of Mr Eastman's various complaints against the police to the Australian Federal Police's internal investigation division and the Ombudsman, was reported in an article "Inquiry into Eastman's allegations against Ninness", published in the Canberra Times on 25 September 1991.

The Canberra Times says it did not fail to publish the report at the time of the first article because of some decision to suppress; in fact Mr Eastman had made two court appearances that day and the reporter was not present at the second appearance when the reference to the complaint was made.

When Mr Eastman drew the attention of the Canberra Times to this, the paper had to check that the allegation had, in fact, been made in court. Because of internal pressures, the Canberra Times admits, there were some delays. Mr Eastman complains that the actual report took almost one month to appear and appeared only after he had indicated he would take the matter to the Press Council.

The Council accepts the Canberra Times' explanation for the matter not being published contemporaneously and its wish to verify that the allegation was made in court. Even so, the Council agrees the delay was unnecessarily long. However, the newspaper has published many other reports, some prominently, and an editorial, in which Mr Eastman's points of view and allegations are given a balanced presentation. Overall, the Council believes the newspaper has been fair to Mr Eastman.