Adjudication No. 593 (September 1992) [1992] APC 63

ADJUDICATION No. 593 (September 1992)

The Press Council has upheld a complaint concerning an article about the naming of a youth who died in a fire at his parents' home, published before the parents who were overseas were contacted, and which contained the suggestion he may have suicided.

Mr William Cox complained to the Australian Press Council concerning a report in the Sunday Mail of 15 September 1991 concerning the death of his son, John, when the family home was burnt down.

The article refers to the parents being overseas, nevertheless it names the deceased. The article, in a box in heavy type, was published alongside another about suicides on The Gateway which it describes under a picture as "Brisbane's suicide bridge".

Central to the article is the conjecture that John suicided, part, it says, of a disturbing Queensland trend of increased youth suicides. It refers to a police belief that a note written by the young man might hold the key to his death. The police are described as puzzled by the fire; there is a reference to "mysterious" explosions and a hose being connected to the exhaust pipe in the family's garage. The police officer is reported as not believing the hose pipe was linked to the fire.

Mr Cox says the Coroner's office has reported that investigations have been completed and that it is proposed to recommend that no inquest be held.

The Council's principles in reporting news require that the privacy and sensibility of individuals be respected. The police did not release the youth's name, but confirmed the name when the newspaper sought a confirmation after its own inquiries. The Council believes that until the parents had been notified, and in the absence of any public interest in a precipitate announcement, the newspaper should have waited.

Although the newspaper apparently correctly reported the police officer's suspicions, the juxtaposition of the article with the other and its tone, together with the naming, would obviously have caused the family great upset.

The Council notes that the newspaper did not follow up the article as to the coronial investigations. Having named the youth and published an article, central to which is the possibility that the youth suicided, reinforced by association with the Brisbane suicide bridge article, the newspaper is under a strong, compelling and continuing duty to the deceased, to the family and to the public not only to follow up the article, but to give prominence to the conclusions of those charged with investigating the death.

The complaint is upheld.