Adjudication No. 1177 (September 2002) [2002] APC 32

Adjudication No. 1177 (September 2002)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint against The Sydney Morning Herald by James Saleam about a report on a campaign that stirred-up racial discontent over Afghan refugees working in Young, NSW.

Dr Saleam was referred to in the article as being a member of the Australia First Party, which had distributed a pamphlet about the refugees. It also said that he was a former head of an extremist political group, National Action. It recorded as background that he had been convicted of firearm offences, and was "caught up in - though never charged" over the murder in 1991 of a National Action member.

The complainant was concerned that his name was linked in the article to the murder, even though it included several denials he made about guilt over the firearms offence, being involved with the pamphlet and owning a mobile phone noted in the pamphlet as a contact. He also objected to being called a "notorious" person, and argued that readers might conclude that he had questionable standards and would deny doing things for which he was responsible.

Dr Saleam alleged that the newspaper breached Press Council principles by falsely publishing information that he was involved in a murder and that his telephones had been bugged by ASIO for security reasons. He said that the article misrepresented the facts and that the editor should have published a letter from him in correction.

The Press Council found that the information about Dr Saleam was factual. Given that, the imputations that he said the article contained about his character either did not arise or were not significant enough to find against the newspaper.

It was reasonable for The Sydney Morning Herald to say that Dr Saleam was "caught up in" the 1991 murder case. There had been media stories speculating about this before the murder trial began, which Dr Saleam's counsel used unsuccessfully to seek an adjournment of his earlier case regarding the firearm offences. Also, the murder victim was Dr Saleam's co-accused in the firearm matters. Dr Saleam was called as a witness in a subsequent Coroner's inquiry, and that inquiry heard that he was the first person that the murderer tried to telephone after committing the offence.

In the Council's view, mention of these facts in the article would have clarified the meaning of the reference for readers.

As to the three denials, the complainant agrees that he made them during conversations with the reporter. It is unlikely that readers would impute from his denial of guilt in the firearms matter that Dr Saleam was being untruthful in denying involvement with the pamphlet or ownership of the mobile telephone. The article drew no conclusions and offered no opinion on these facts.

Regarding the claim that Dr Saleam's telephone was bugged for security reasons, the newspaper pointed out that ASIO was established as a security organization. ASIO itself has said that it regarded some extremist groups as being a serious risk to Australia's security.