Adjudication No. 576 (July 1992) [1992] APC 46

ADJUDICATION No. 576 (July 1992)

The Press Council has dismissed a complaint from Dr Paul Maher against the Maryborough Advertiser.

In essence the complaint raises the question: does an editor have the right to bar a letter-writer from the correspondence columns of a paper? The Council's answer is: given reasonable cause, yes; indeed, an editor may have a duty to publishers, owners, shareholders so to do.

There is a history of differences between Dr Maher and the Maryborough Advertiser. This complaint arose from a Dr Maher letter published by the paper on 16 August 1991. The letter claimed that an independent survey had been conducted into medical appointments at Maryborough Hospital and findings reached. According to the letter the findings commented unfavourably on the way the Hospital Board Medical Advisory Committee had treated Dr Maher's application to perform "limited surgery" at the hospital.

After quoting the consultant as saying there was no point in criticising those involved and conciliation should take place, the letter went on to say that the consultant's view was that the board "should stop being defensive and be more reasonable in arranging shared services currently held exclusively by the group practice".

Dr Maher described his letter as conciliatory. To others it was not; the paper's first judgment was that the letter was libellous, but it went ahead with publication in view of what it regarded as the small chances of legal action and in view of the history of wrangling between the doctor and the hospital.

Four days later the paper reported that the Hospital Board had legal opinion that the letter contained a prima facie libel and that Dr Maher might be sued for damages.

Two days later the doctor wrote to the paper in a conciliatory manner, but went on to accuse the paper of sensationalism ands unfairness. The letter was not published, but the points made in it, including the fact that he was taking the matter to the Press Council, were incorporated in a news story published the following day.

The published letter has not, in fact, sparked legal action, but the paper has seen two legal opinions that it could. On the other hand, Dr Maher has a legal opinion that it is not libellous.

Evidence before the Press Council indicated that:

• The consultant, Mr John Sawtell, conducted what he described as a feasibility study, not a survey.

• The study was commissioned by a group of local people, unidentified other than Dr Maher.

• No report was provided, "merely a letter offering my (Mr Sawtell's) opinions on the matter".

• Dr Maher's published letter "was perhaps a fair summary of my opinions", in the words of Mr Sawtell.

The feasibility study led to no further action, other than the letter to Dr Maher. Mr Sawtell did not approach the Hospital Board because, he said, preliminary discussions did not lead him to believe that such an approach would be fruitful in resolving the dispute. He told Dr Maher: "At all stages I indicated to you that your tactics were often antagonistic rather than conciliatory."

Aware of some of these circumstances, or at least in doubt about some of the statements made in the original letter, the paper's editor informed Dr Maher that future letters from him would not be published unless he gave a written undertaking that anything he submitted was true to the best of his knowledge. This Dr Maher refused as an infringement on his civil liberties.

The editor then informed the doctor that the paper, on the advice of its libel insurers and from legal opinion, would no longer publish anything from him.

The editor added: "To balance this ruling, we also will not publish any material from any opposing source which might name you, except if we are reporting a matter before the courts."

In the Press Council's view, the editor's actions were justified.

In another matter raised by Dr Maher and supported by Mrs Jeanne Hart, a further complaint has been made against the paper because of an editor's footnote published at the end of a letter from Mrs Hart.

Mrs Hart objected to a story, written in allegedly "glowing terms", about a topless barmaid at a local hotel. The footnote denied any glowing terms and claimed that, in fact, the female reporter was "outraged" over the matter; however the paper had published the story as she had written it.

The footnote went on to raise matters about Mrs Hart's business affairs and the publicity sought for them.

The Press Council believes that the editor went too far in moving outside the matters raised in the letter. However, the Press Council notes that later the paper made it clear that it should not have made public comments on Mrs Hart's business affairs but should have restricted this matter to private comments.