Adjudication No. 1487 (adjudicated December 2010) [2010] APC 37

Adjudication No. 1487 (adjudicated December 2010)

A complaint to the Australian Press Council has arisen from an article in The West Australian about the suspension of a psychologist from clinical practice.

The psychologist, Vivian Bell, complained about an article on 24 April 2010 headed Psychologist banned for affair with client. It reported that Ms Bell had been suspended from practice for seven months by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for starting a relationship with a male client.

The article said Ms Bell admitted she was "involved in a personal relationship with a male client within a month of conducting therapy with him" and he had given her "temporary financial assistance". It said the former patient told the SAT that after a relationship of several years with Ms Bell he had been shocked and hurt to discover she was in relationships with two other men.

Ms Bell said the headline was inaccurate and unfair. She suggested "banned" implied she was struck off rather than suspended for a finite period; "affair" wrongly implied a sexual relationship; and the man was no longer a "client" when the personal relationship began. She also said the claims about their financial relationship and her other relationships were inaccurate and biased, pointing out that they were not mentioned in the SAT orders.

Ms Bell suggested that the newspaper had been fed false information by her ex-husband and said that, although the newspaper called her for an interview, the approach was so hostile that she declined. She also complained that the journalist conducted a very lengthy and hostile telephone interview with her after the article appeared but none of her refutations were subsequently reported.

The newspaper responded that the word "affair" did not necessarily connote a sexual relationship but in any event there had been such a relationship. It also defended the other aspects of the headline. It said that the SAT orders were "limited to a statement of agreed facts" and do not "cover all relevant issues".

The newspaper said the allegations by the former patient reported in the article were taken from a statement which it believed had been made to the tribunal but, in any event, it had information from him and other sources to support the claims about financial and other relationships. It said the request for an interview before publication gave her a reasonable opportunity to refute the allegations.

The Press Council has concluded that the headline does not contravene its principles of accuracy and fairness, and therefore this aspect of the complaint is dismissed. As Ms Bell had admitted that she and the former patient took holidays together, bought a house together and signed a notice of intended marriage, it was not unreasonable for the newspaper to conclude the relationship constituted an "affair". The term "banned" is compatible with the suspension for seven months.

In light of the somewhat contentious use of the word "client" in the headline, however, the article itself could reasonably have been expected to use the fuller description in the SAT orders that the "personal relationship with a male client" developed "within a month of the end of the clinical relationship".

The Press Council has concluded that, having published serious allegations about Ms Bell based on sources which might well be partial, the newspaper should have made greater efforts to ensure that she had adequate opportunity to refute them.

Addendum to the adjudication:

Ms Bell also complained about use of the term "counselling" to describe the SAT order that she meet with a supervisor fortnightly for three months and then monthly for nine months to discuss boundaries in professional relationships and maintenance of proper boundaries with male clients. The Press Council does not consider that this usage was sufficiently misleading to uphold the complaint. She also complained that the photograph of her accompanying the article had been altered and distorted. The newspaper denied doing so and, in any event, the Council could see no indication that the changes alleged by Ms Bell would have caused any significant unfairness or inaccuracy.