Adjudication No. 1210 (July 2003) [2003] APC 26

Adjudication No. 1210 (July 2003)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Peter Foster against the News Limited group of newspapers including The Courier-Mail, The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, The Advertiser and The Gold Coast Bulletin.

Mr Foster was a central character in "Cheriegate" in which Cherie Booth QC, the wife of the British Prime Minister, was called to account after Mr Foster acted as adviser and negotiator in her purchase of two flats in Bristol.

Mr Foster has since returned to Australia where he is a co-defendant in a civil penalties action in the Federal Court brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under the Trade Practices Act.

He has complained of three articles from the News group's European correspondent in December 2002 that provided a highly colourful insight into his background and critical commentary on his character. These described him as an "Australian conman" and "pedlar of snake-oil anti-fat remedies". They stated that he had been jailed in Australia, the US and Britain, which was not disputed, and added that he was wanted in Australia for questioning over a "slimming product scam", which Mr Foster did dispute.

One typical description stated: "Foster was a seriously well-known bit of London low-life who hung around the edge of celebrity." However, the stories relied in large part on descriptions and assertions ascribed to the British media and the News group has in turn relied on this to refute the claim that its newspapers had reported as fact matters that were untruthful, malicious, unjustified and amounted to criminal defamation.

One of the articles was built around a London press conference where Mr Foster, having admitted only a small pool of reporters, made a statement and then refused to take questions. The article demonstrated how the British press had sought to demolish his assertion that nobody had lost money through his enterprises.

Mr Foster made no attempt to contact any of the Australian newspapers to request publication of balancing material until six months had elapsed and then only after the Press Council insisted that he did so before accepting his complaint for adjudication. He then submitted lengthy replications of his complaints to the Press Council which each publication rejected on the grounds of unsuitability and length.

It is noted that Mr Foster has also laid similar complaints against British newspapers to the Press Complaints Commission and only one has been upheld. That related to the publication of intercepted mobile phone conversations which was not at issue here.

There are far too many separate points at issue to go into detail. Suffice to say Mr Foster has given media interviews and written articles in which he has admitted to a colourful past that includes being a fugitive from justice, an escapee and a maverick marketer of lotions, potions, pills and patches. In these he has accepted that people did not have to embellish upon his past to make him look bad.

The newspapers' coverage was in the circumstances fair and a matter of wide public interest. Had Mr Foster believed that these articles lowered his reputation he could have sought legal recourse.