Bernie O'Neill against the Southland Times
Case Number: 3754
Council Meeting: 21 July 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Southland Times
Principle:
Privacy
Confidentiality
Ruling Categories:
Confidentiality
Privacy
Overview
1. On 7 May 2025 the Southland Times published an article titled, “It’s gut-wrenching: Burglars leave salon with bare shelves.”
2. Bernadine O’Neill has made a complaint to the Media Council on the basis that the article breached the following Principles: Principle (2) Privacy and Principle (8) Confidentiality. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
3. The article that the complaint relates to is one that was published in The Southland Times on 7 May 2025, titled “It’s gut-wrenching: Burglars leave salon with bare shelves”. The story is about an Invercargill business owner, who attempted to chase down two burglars that had broken into her hair and beauty salon. The article named Mrs O’Neill as the business owner and noted that her efforts helped police to arrest one of the suspects. It also described the damage to her salon.
4. Mrs O’Neill was interviewed and quoted in the article. She shared the impacts that the burglary had on her business and that she was feeling uneasy due to recent and similar incidents in the area.
5. The police were also interviewed and quoted in the article. The police spokesperson confirmed that the burglary was not believed to be linked to other recent incidents in the area. The police spokesperson also asked members of the public to come forward if they located hair or beauty products discarded near Mrs O’Neill’s salon.
6. A photograph of a staff member standing in front of the salon also featured in the article. Mrs O’Neill was not in the photograph.
7. The article originally included where Mrs O’Neill lived. There was also mention of Mrs O’Neill’s husband and how they bought properties in the area with the aim of restoring them. These details were removed a week after the article was published.
8. The article was published online and in print.
The Complaint
9. On 8 May 2025 Mrs O’Neill contacted the editor of The Southland Times and expressed outrage and distress over the article. Mrs O’Neill believes she told the reporter that she did not give permission to have her personal details published. Mrs O’Neill was concerned because the article disclosed information that she considered to be sensitive, specifically; Mrs O’Neill’s residence, identity and the properties she shared with her husband. Mrs O’Neill raised concerns about her safety. Mrs O’Neill urged the editor to consider the impact of reporting on victims of crime and asked to remove or amend the personal details shared in the article. Mrs O’Neill acknowledged that it may be too late as the article had already been published.
10. On 12 May 2025 Mrs O’Neill sent an email to the Editor in Chief for Stuff digital. Mrs O’Neill shared that the article caused her significant distress because she believes she did not consent to the reporter publishing her personal details. She explained that she felt disrespected and vulnerable because the burglary investigation was ongoing. Mrs O’Neill was upset that she had not received an acknowledgement or apology. She also stated that she did not give anyone permission to photograph her.
11. Accordingly, Mrs O’Neill alleges that the article breached two Principles, namely, Privacy and Confidentiality.
The Response
12. The editor of The Southland Times responded in writing and over the phone.
13. Over email, the editor first apologised for the stress that the incident caused.
14. The reporter made it clear that she was acting in her professional capacity. The reporter’s role was further emphasised by the police that attended the scene, as they confirmed with Mrs O’Neill that they knew the reporter was from the media.
15. The Southland Times confirmed that the reporter involved is an experienced senior reporter. The reporter maintains that they are confident Mrs O’Neill did not express her wish to remain anonymous or that any details she provided were off the record. Prior to Mrs O’Neill’s interview in person, Mrs O’Neill was interviewed over the phone by the reporter and Mrs O’Neill also did not state that she wanted any information withheld at that time either.
16. In response to Mrs O’Neill stating that she did not give anyone permission to photograph her, the editor explained that Mrs O’Neill gave permission for a staff member to be photographed instead.
17. The editor took on board Mrs O’Neill’s comments about feeling vulnerable and the editor reassured that they would take this feedback to the reporter.
18. As well as apologising in writing for the distress caused, the editor of The Southland Times also apologised over the phone to Mrs O’Neill on 14 May 2025.
19. The Southland Times offered to remove all references in the article to Mrs O’Neill’s husband and personal property. Mrs O’Neill agreed. The references were removed immediately after the phone call on 14 May 2025.
The Discussion
Principle (2): Privacy
20. Mrs O’Neill alleges the article breached her privacy by publishing personal details specifically about her identity, where she lives and information about her husband. There is dispute between Mrs O’Neill and The Southland Times over whether or not Mrs O’Neill instructed the reporter to keep her identity and other personal details confidential.
21. There is high public interest in reporting on crime, especially crimes that target a specific group such as business owners. The article about Mrs O’Neill’s salon focused on the burglary and the impact it had on her business, as well as the wider community.
22. Mrs O’Neill had two interviews in preparation for the article. An initial phone interview and an interview in person. Despite the disagreement between Mrs O’Neill and The Southland Times over the details that were not to be disclosed, the article was about a burglary at Mrs O’Neill’s salon and all information relating to Mrs O’Neill’s background was provided by Mrs O’Neill in the context of an interview. The reporter obtained the information for the purpose of the article. Details of Mrs O’Neill’s salon are publicly available online and it is a service that members of the public can access. If Mrs O’Neill’s name was removed, there is still a public connection that links her to the salon and by consequence, the article. In respect of Mrs O’Neill’s name being mentioned in the article, there is no breach under Principle (2).
23. The information about Mrs O’Neill owning properties with her husband was provided by Mrs O’Neill to the reporter. The reporter was speaking with Mrs O’Neill in their professional capacity. It is a reasonable expectation that the information shared by Mrs O’Neill could be used for the purpose of providing context for the article. In this regard, there is no breach under Principle (2).
24. Mrs O’Neill’s residence also featured in the original publication of the article. Although the business that Mrs O’Neill owns is
in the public domain, Mrs O’Neill’s private residence is not. In light of the ongoing police investigation, recent aggravated
robberies in the area and nature of the offending at the salon, the Media Council acknowledges that Mrs O’Neill was in a vulnerable
position. The Media Council recognises that the publication of incidents involving criminal activity can cause a considerable amount of
stress for victims.
Additional time and consideration could have been given to the decision on whether or not to include this detail. The onus is on
reporters to ensure that interviewees understand the purpose of their discussions, particularly interviewees that may be in a vulnerable
position.
25. It is imperative to note however that Mrs O’Neill’s private residence was not a prominent feature in the article and mentioned briefly. Including Mrs O’Neill’s residence in the article also helped to explain why she was able to identify one of the perpetrators. This was also information that was volunteered by Mrs O’Neill in the context of an article. The references were removed as soon as The Southland Times were aware that Mrs O’Neill was distressed.
26. While mentioning Mrs O’Neill’s residence may have infringed on her privacy to a slight degree, given the circumstances already outlined, it is not sufficient to establish a breach under Principle (2).
27. Taking into account all relevant factors into account, there is no breach under Principle (2).
Principle (8): Confidentiality
28. Mrs O’Neill was not an anonymous source and while there is dispute about what was agreed between Mrs O’Neill and the reporter, Mrs O’Neill is a business owner. Her business is available and accessible to the public. Mrs O’Neill is publicly listed as the business owner. If the article about her salon removed her name, Mrs O’Neill would still have been linked and identified.
29. There is no breach under Principle (8).
Decision: The complaint under Principles (2) and (8) is not upheld unanimously.
Council members considering the complaint were: Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Katrina Bennett, Guy MacGibbon, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison
Thom, Reina Vaai, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson.
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.