Adjudication No. 1490 (February 2011) [2011] APC 2

A complaint to the Australian Press Council has arisen from an article in a suburban newspaper, Perth Voice, about the suicide of a named man who was to be a key witness at an impending hearing of the WA Corruption and Crime Commission. The hearing involved aspects of his conduct while a senior staff member of the Stirling City Council. The article, which appeared on 18 September 2010, was headed Death halts corruption probe.

The Mayor of the Council, Cr David Boothman, complained that it was unethical and totally unnecessary for the article to name the man and noted that he had not been tried or convicted of any offence. The Mayor said that Perth Voice was the only media outlet to name the man and that the name was also suppressed at the subsequent Commission hearing in order to “minimise grief to his family and friends". The Mayor said that the newspaper had shown no respect for the privacy and sensibilities of the man’s family, especially his wife and children.

Cr Boothman also complained that the article mentioned another named man who it alleged had committed suicide two and a half years earlier after being dismissed by the Stirling City Council. He said that the reference to suicide was inaccurate and unfair because the Coroner had delivered an open verdict on the cause of death. He also said that the reference conveyed an inaccurate and unfair implication that this alleged suicide was connected with the subsequent one by the key witness. He said that the report showed a lack of respect for the sensibilities of the person’s family.

The Perth Voice responded that it was justifiable to name the first man because he was to have been a key witness at an official corruption inquiry involving his conduct as a local government officer. It said that "whenever possible all known facts should be made available to readers" and that by suppressing names of people who have committed suicide other media outlets are “compounding out-dated and unhelpful prejudices … thereby inhibiting society’s urgent need to confront these [mental health] issues”. It said the report was written in a straightforward, non-inflammatory style and that the family, friends and former work colleagues were well aware of the circumstances of his death.

In relation to its reference to the earlier alleged suicide, Perth Voice said that that the similarities between the circumstances of the two deaths made it newsworthy but the article made no inference that the deaths were related. It reiterated its general views about the reporting of suicide and the implications of suppression in this area.

The Press Council has concluded that publication of the name of the man who was scheduled to be a key witness at the Commission hearing was justifiable as being a matter of significant public interest and was not in material breach of the Council’s guidelines on the reporting of suicide.

In reaching this conclusion, the Press Council has taken account of the hurt that may have been caused to family and friends as a result of his suicide becoming more widely known. However, this had to be weighed against adverse impacts for the public interest if suppression fosters misunderstanding or risks potential harm to other people. Accordingly, the complaint about naming the key witness is not upheld.

The Press Council has concluded, however, that the Perth Voice was clearly unfair in its gratuitous reference to the earlier death of a former Stirling Council employee. The newspaper had insufficient grounds for making the very serious assertion of suicide and for linking the two deaths. It compounded these grave errors by naming the man. Accordingly, the complaint about reporting of the earlier death is upheld.

Supplementary Note (not required to be published)

Cr Boothman had conveyed his concerns in a letter to the Editor and Chief of Staff of Perth Voice before complaining to the Press Council. The newspaper printed his letter in full and added a note explaining the reasons for its decisions to publish. Cr Boothman objected to this action, however, on the ground that he had not intended the letter for publication. The Council considers that it was reasonable for the newspaper to assume that it could be published.