Adjudication No. 603 (October 1992) [1992] APC 73

ADJUDICATION NO. 603 (October 1992)

The press Council has dismissed a complaint from the Victorian Association of Citizens Advice Bureaus against The Bulletin over an article critical of the bureaus.

The article, one of John Gilmour's regular From the Bootery features of business comment, trenchantly criticised a CAB for what he saw as a peremptory demand for compensation of "less than $100" for injuries claimed to have been caused by a pair of shoes sold by 'the Bootery'.

The association claimed that the article disguised the fact that Mr Gilmour was, in fact, the proprietor of 'the Bootery' and thus advanced "a purely private cause" from "a privileged position of considerable public influence".

The Press Council does not accept the accusation of deception. Mr Gilmour writes in the third person, but it is quite clear from the article that he is writing of himself; indeed, he is well known to Bulletin readers as a commentator and the proprietor of what he calls 'the Bootery'.

In the article Mr Gilmour accused the CAB of "an exercise in moral coercion" in that it sought compensation for medical expenses even though there was no certainty that the shoes were faulty or that they caused a woman to fall. The CAB argument, apparently put several times, was that "not much money" was involved.

Mr Gilmour complained that 'the Bootery' had not been given the chance to examine the shoes "because - wait for it - the customer 'needed to wear them'".

He saw 'the Bootery' as being harried by an organisation that had an "amorphous legal structure incorporated under a statute that protects its officers and employees from just about any legal liability whatsoever, which has no assets to put at risk and which is funded from government and other misguided benefactors".

The Bulletin published a letter from Bettie Kornhauser, president of the Victorian Association of CABs, about a month after the publication of the original article and about three weeks after she had sent the letter to the magazine. The letter made the hidden identity accusation and referred to "scurrilous comments" about CABs.

The letter, which was cut slightly to The Bulletin limit of 250 words, did not contradict any of the facts as given in the article. It did add to them to some degree: the shoes were said to have been being worn for only the second time; the heel tip was alleged to have fallen off immediately before the fall; and the woman was "willing to receive replacement shoes, plus reimbursement of $46.80 for her medical expenses". Nothing of importance was cut from the letter, and The Bulletin says the delay in publication was unavoidable.

Nothing in the letter or in other matter before the Press Council goes beyond the mere assertion that the shoes were in some way to blame for the accident.

Given that Mr Gilmour was not given the opportunity to examine the shoes and given the lack of evidence put to him as to the cause of the fall, the Council finds it impossible to criticise him for reacting with offence to the claim that he should pay up because "not much money" was involved.

As to the association's concern that Mr Gilmour was writing from personal experience, that would seem to be a plus rather than a minus.