Adjudication No. 1493 (June 2011) [2011] APC 6

The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint by Kim McGregor about a court report in The Geelong Advertiser on 10 December 2010. The report concerned charges against the complainant of recklessly causing injury, offensive behaviour, resisting police and assaulting police, to each of which he had pleaded guilty.

Mr McGregor complained about publication of his job title and employer, full name, age, address and the fact that he was “dreadlocked”. He said his job with a major public agency involved sensitive decisions relating to claimants’ medical treatment and benefit payments. To reduce the risk of personal threats to staff, his employer prohibits them from disclosing their surnames to third parties. He said that the article had led to threatening phone calls that breached his privacy and risked his safety.

Mr McGregor also complained that the article quoted the police prosecutor as saying that Mr McGregor "raised his fists and shaped up to an officer who, fearing he was going to be struck, delivered a single blow to McGregor". He denied that such an action happened and that the statement had been made in court.

The newspaper said it is “crucial that any details presented to the court to identify the defendant, including name, age, address and employment, are published to ensure accurate reporting” and that failure to do so in the past has “resulted in people of the same name being defamed and led to costly claims against the newspaper at fault”. It pointed out that the offences occurred after an office party and it said that “dreadlocked” was not intended to convey any pejorative connotations.

The Council was shown police statements that were tendered in court during the proceedings, including a statement by a police witness that was similar to the quotation in the article. A similar version of that statement also appeared in the summary of offence relied on by the police prosecutor in court.

The Council considers that mention of the employer’s name was not unfair in the circumstances. Key aspects of the employing agency’s role involve judgments about claimants’ behaviour, including use of alcohol and the offences followed an office party. The Council notes the reference to the complainant’s hairstyle but is not convinced that the description was either gratuitous or unfair. The Council considers that the use of the quotation was justifiable whether the statement had been tendered in a document or actually spoken in court.

Accordingly, the Council dismisses all the complaints.