Adjudication No. 1089 (July 2000) [2000] APC 24

ADJUDICATION No. 1089 (July 2000)

The Press Council has upheld complaints from the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) against The West Australian.

The complaints centre on a series of reports and an editorial concerning the work of the commission and allegations made against it and people associated with it. The paper was highly critical of the ACC.

The paper published a front-page story saying among other things, "it is understood" that two women agents of the Federal police and "a friend from the Anti-Corruption Commission" had regularly met a "speedway identity" once targeted by organised-crime detectives. No response was apparently sought from the ACC before publication.

The following day the paper published another front-page lead story which reported that WA Police Union lawyer, John Quigley, claimed that the ACC had been infiltrated by organised crime and that "a senior ACC figure had been seen fraternising or socialising with a crime syndicate involved in heroin distribution".

This story included an ACC denial of "infiltration" and of impropriety by the "figure". The story also reported the finding of an independent investigation which declared baseless the accusations of the man having had a financial interest in a pleasure boat with a crime suspect.

The ACC claims that by failing in both stories to identify the "senior figure", a senior lawyer who had worked for the ACC for a short period in 1997, the paper was tainting the five senior officers of the ACC and the ACC as whole. It was, says the ACC, part of the paper's campaign against the ACC and in support of its editorial call for a Royal Commission.

The paper says it was worried about defamation and limited by the lack of transparency in various inquiries that had been held. It says that its prime concern was the functioning of the ACC, not the alleged behaviour of the lawyer.

The accusation of association with crime figures dates back to 1997 when the lawyer conducted an investigation on behalf of the ACC. He has not been linked with the ACC since then.

The accusation of "a close personal association between [the lawyer] and certain known criminals" was investigated by a parliamentary committee in 1998, and the lawyer was cleared. And was so reported at the time by The West Australian.

The ACC claims that the 1997-98 accusation and what surfaced in the newspaper interview with Mr Quigley, that "a senior ACC figure had been seen fraternising and socialising with members of an organised crime syndicate involved in heroin distribution", were in essence the same.

The paper says it believed it was a fresh allegation involving the same lawyer.

The facts and the claims made in the report are difficult to untangle, particularly whether the two allegations are basically one and the same or not.

However, whether the second allegation was new or not, the paper knew, or should have known, that the first allegation against the same lawyer had been dismissed. That dismissal should have been reported in the original front-page story. Further, comments on the allegation should have been sought from the ACC. All in the interest of balance.

Further complaints of lesser import have also been upheld. One was about a letter sent by the ACC to The West Australian, but not clearly identified for publication. The letter's claim of inaccuracies in the paper was not published, but the statistics in the letter showing better than reported ACC performance were included as part of a news report. The paper should have reported the claim of inaccuracies.

Another complaint concerned the release of information on searches made of police officers' homes and offices. The paper reported that the police officers thought that an inquiry had not settled the issue of whether the ACC went beyond its Act by releasing the information. The ACC says that the release was made in response to questions from The West Australian, and the paper's then editor had indicated that it would publish the story whether the ACC said anything or not. The Press Council believes that the ACC explanation, valid or not under the terms of the ACC enabling Act, should have been sought by the newspaper and published.

In its responses to the complaints the paper makes the point that both the laws of defamation and the tendency towards secrecy in government and non-government organisations contribute to the confusion that can surround matters of public interest and controversy. The Press Council agrees, but stresses that great care must be taken to avoid such confusion and to maintain fairness and balance.