Adjudication No. 1441 (adjudicated October 2009) [2009] APC 28

Adjudication No. 1441 (adjudicated October 2009)

The Press Council has dismissed the main thrust of a complaint brought by Rodney Adler against The Sunday Telegraph in relation to two articles which reported on the role played by him in a company called Almighty Fodder, but has upheld a complaint about one of the headlines used.

The first article was published on June 21, 2009 (Adler faces ASIC query) and the second article was published on July 5, 2009 (Asset stripping claim over grain firm: Why Adler faces more jail time).

The articles reported the lodging of a complaint with ASIC by shareholders in Almighty Fodder claiming that Adler "has orchestrated the stripping of assets from Almighty Fodder to a new company, Dynamic Fodder, without giving them due shares in the new company". The articles referred to the contents of various emails that emanated from Adler.

The articles referred to the 2005 jailing of Adler for "his role in the largest corporate collapse in Australia's history" and his 2007 release on parole till October 2009. The June 21 article pointed out that under the restrictions imposed on Adler, he was "prohibited from managing a corporation, or from participating in the making of decisions that affect a business' operations".

The complainant claims that the article defamed him and that they contained various "inflammatory and derogatory imputations" about him: that he has committed offences in relation to his involvement with Almighty Fodder; that he breached the conditions of his parole of such seriousness as to justify his return to prison; that he has defrauded shareholders of Almighty Fodder by causing its assets to be stripped and transferred to another entity controlled by him; that he 'dishonestly' held himself out as a consultant of Almighty Fodder; that he is likely to 'recidivate'. The complainant also claims that the headline of the July 5 article was "grossly disproportionate to the content of the article". Furthermore, he claims that the articles relied entirely on "imputation and innuendos" to make "a further and continuing character assassination on [his] already shattered integrity".

In the view of the Press Council, the newspaper carefully distinguished between the reporting of facts and allegations in the two impugned articles.

While the complainant may not appreciate being cast back in the spotlight, the newspaper was justified in its invocation of 'significant public interest' in the activities of the complainant, especially in relation to his current activities. The newspaper rejected the claim by the complainant that the newspaper's reporter had worked with the shareholders in making their complaint to ASIC. Furthermore, the newspaper pointed out that it had made a number of unsuccessful attempts to contact the complainant and finally, when contacted, he had declined to provide his comments.

Overall, the articles reasonably covered a matter of public interest. However, the Press Council finds that the heading in the 5 July article (Why Adler faces more jail time) is unfair to the complainant, implying something that article does not support. To that extent only, the complaint is upheld.