Adjudication No. 702 (February 1994) [1994] APC 11

ADJUDICATION No. 702 (February 1994)

Mr Tim Anderson complained to the Press Council about an article published in the Sun Herald entitled "Hilton bomb thriller for TV". He complained that the Sun Herald published material was inaccurate and harmful to him and that the paper refused to apologise or retract. He further complained that background "facts" in the article were distorted and that the Sun Herald article had little regard for his privacy or sensibilities. He particularly objected to the use of his photograph as part of the story.

The article dealt with a television documentary on the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing of 1978. It concentrated on the filming of the documentary, the chronology and mysteries which still surround the incident. In the article Mr Anderson is described as having been accused of committing the bombing, having been committed to trial on three counts of murder after allegedly being named by an informer, having been found guilty and sentenced to ten years gaol and in June 1991 having been acquitted by the Court of Appeal. All references to Mr Anderson were contained in a single paragraph or in the chronology surrounding his photograph. The main theme of the article was the mystery surrounding the bombing and investigations.

Mr Anderson complained that the portrayal of him in the story was distressing. He claimed that the constant association between himself and the Hilton bombing was both offensive and damaging. He believed that the article reinforced reader prejudices and strengthened the guilt by association. Mr Anderson also complained that the writer did not consult him about the story, and that the story was misleading in using his photograph in the centre of the chronology which formed part of the story.

It is understandable that Mr Anderson, having been acquitted of the crime, is concerned to distance himself from the events and to discourage further association with the bombing. However this is not the same as inaccurate reporting of the events. In respect of the publication of the photograph of Mr Anderson in connection with the story, it is possible to see how Mr Anderson may feel that his privacy has not been respected. Mr Anderson has counted the various references to himself and concluded that the article was distorted and misrepresented his position. The newspaper did, however, make it clear that he had been acquitted by the Court of Appeal.

While it may have been painful for him to see his photograph once again associated with the Hilton bombing saga, use of the photograph was clearly within acceptable standards. Mr Anderson has been a central figure in this incident and his historical association with it is public knowledge. The chronology presented is a factual one and given Mr Anderson's history of association it was not unreasonable that the newspaper included his photograph in the story.

The complaint is dismissed.