Adjudication No. 838 (January 1996) [1996] APC 11

ADJUDICATION No. 838 (January 1996)

The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint against The Tully Times over a front page article headed "Alex Mavridoglu [Dhatch] Sunrise Motel and Ampol Service Stn [Dhatch] caught in drug net".

The complaint was brought by Gwen Flegler, who owns the Cardwell Ampol service station in partnership with a company owned by Mr Mavridoglu and his wife, Maria.

The lead sentence of the article says that Alex Mavridoglu, "the owner of the Sunrise Motel at Cardwell and a partner in the Ampol Island Coast Service Station with Gwen Flegler", had been arrested and charged with drug offences after an extensive police operation.

The Tully Times later corrected the name of the service station, pointing out that it was the Cardwell service station that was owned by Mrs Flegler in partnership with Mr Mavridoglu and his wife.

Mrs Flegler says that neither the service station nor she had any involvement in the charges.

The article had created problems for both the business and her family; and the inclusion of her name was a personal swipe at her character and business.

The Managing Editor of The Tully Times says that the public had a right to know that Alex Mavridoglu was a partner in the service station [Dhatch] and therefore the name of the other partner.

He says that Mrs Flegler's former husband's name was mentioned to differentiate her from another Flegler family in the area and to ensure people were aware that Keith Flegler was no longer a partner in the service station, and that the two were divorced.

The Press Council's first principle requires news and comment to be presented with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. The fifth principle requires readers to be treated fairly by not distorting the facts.

The Council believes that The Tully Times article breaches both these principles.

The heading would have led many casual readers to believe the service station was somehow involved in the drug raids.

The use of Mrs Flegler's name in the lead sentence was gratuitous, bringing her name into a situation in which there is no suggestion that she was involved.