Adjudication No. 1117 (March 2001) [2001] APC 18

Adjudication No. 1117 (March 2001)

The Australian Press Council has upheld complaints over a report published in four metropolitan newspapers about the winners of a record lottery.

On Australia Day a Perth couple won a $30 million Powerball jackpot in Australia's largest lottery win. They sought and obtained anonymity from the Lotteries Commission.

The report, written by a Perth-based News Limited journalist, was published prominently, but with slight variations, by the Brisbane Courier-Mail, the Hobart Mercury, the Northern Territory News and the Adelaide Advertiser on Saturday 3 February. The report identified the family by their given names and suburb of residence and included images of the husband, their house and the family car. Information in the report had been obtained from members of the couple's extended family.

Following publication of the report, the couple held an open press conference in which they revealed their identities to the media generally.

A number of readers from around Australia complained to the Council about the report. They said it displayed flagrant disregard for the privacy and safety of the family. At least one complainant suggested that the tone of the articles indicated that the newspapers published the articles not because they needed to but because they could. The winners themselves did not complain to the Council.

The Press Council's principles, and earlier findings, assert the paramount principle of the free press, but balance this with a concern that individuals unwittingly involved in the news have a right to privacy that is lessened only when there is an obvious or significant public interest in the information.

The Powerball lottery was the biggest ever held in Australia and, as a result, aroused intense interest. The winners were undoubtedly newsworthy. The report was published in states other than where the family resides, but access to it was readily available at outlets and on the Internet in Perth.

The published report paid lip service to protection of the family's privacy. It not only failed to do so but diminished the integrity of the news process. It also included details which, in view of the amount of money involved, should have been left out. The newspapers could have fulfilled their duty to the public interest without the detail that crossed the line into the winners' rights.

The Council agrees with the complainants that the report, as published, was invasive and intruded unnecessarily.