Adjudication No. 1054 (October 1999) [1999] APC 48

ADJUDICATION No. 1054 (October 1999)

The Australian Press Council has upheld by a narrow majority complaints against The Daily Telegraph, Sydney, over its coverage of the release from prison on parole of a convicted child murderer.

Because the Press Council's role is to adjudicate whether its principles, which broadly relate to the responsibilities and fairness of the press, have been breached, it sees no reason to revisit the details of the case or the specifics of the coverage in several prominent articles in The Daily Telegraph in June 1999.

Suffice to say they related to the release from prison of the well-known prisoner who had been convicted in 1974 of the murder of a five-year-old girl.

The paper reported, variously, that he was "smuggled" out of prison; that original Parole Board plans to place the man in the care of his ageing parents in regional NSW had been cancelled; that he was released, under supervision, to a house in an inner Sydney suburb, opposite a small primary school; and that he had finally been placed elsewhere in an unreported location.

The complainants, one of whom owned the house in which the man stayed, argued that the paper had "undertaken an explicit campaign of trying to subvert the legal process of (the parolee's) release into the community".

They alleged that the paper had used inflammatory headlines, intemperate, biased and factually inaccurate articles and editorial comments which went "beyond acceptable journalistic practice".

The paper argued that the issue was clearly a matter of public interest and, rather than running a campaign, it was merely reflecting community concerns, especially during the brief period the parolee was living in the inner city suburb.

The Press Council agrees that the issue was a matter of obvious public interest and the paper was justified in covering it. The Daily Telegraph certainly "campaigned", but its view that, among other things, the man should have remained in jail, was confined to legitimate editorial and bylined opinion. However, its news reports on the issue also heavily reflected that view.

Issues such as this highlight the difficult challenge newspapers have of balancing their coverage between the public's right to know and the rights of individuals. In this case, the paper's reporting was unduly influenced by editorial opinion.