Adjudication No. 1220 (October 2003) [2003] APC 36

Adjudication No. 1220 (October 2003)

The Press Council has upheld a complaint against The West Australian over the headline on a report of a police decision not to prosecute alleged attackers involved in an altercation at the Balgo Hills community, but has not upheld other aspects of the complaint.

A headline, Aboriginal rioters free on tribal law, appeared over a report that a group of Aborigines "brutally beat a white community worker during a tribal payback riot", but no prosecution followed. The trouble started, said the paper, after a six-year-old boy was killed by a reversing fuel tanker. The driver escaped, but community worker Peter McLean was set upon while he attempted to prevent the tanker being set alight. Mr McLean claimed that the attack was a tribal payback, and the lack of prosecution meant that such a payback against white people was approved.

The police were quoted as saying that charges were not laid because of a lack of evidence, "little corroboration of the alleged facts", and "other elements, such as provocation, mistaken belief and cultural beliefs". The paper sought comment from "a range of Aboriginal representatives", but could get no response.

The complainant, Trevor Jewell, argues the headline is inaccurate and says that the incident involved no tribal law or payback, as reported. The paper points out that he does not challenge the key facts in the report, that a man was brutally assaulted by rioting Aborigines and that the police had decided not to lay charges.

The complainant, who manages a health service for the Balgo community, says there had been "mob rule" but it was a response to a horrible accident and not tribal law.

In the Council's view, the headline, derived from Mr McLean's statements, misrepresented the reasons why the prosecution was not proceeded with. To this extent the complaint is upheld.

However, the Council believes that the basic facts and allegations in the matter were accurately reported by the paper; the differences between the complainant and Mr McLean are questions of interpretation.