Christine Teirney against the Rotorua Daily Post

The Rotorua Daily Post published an article on April 24, 2025, titled Rotorua man charged with abducting 3-year-old from daycare for sex.

The article named a young man who entered no plea when he appeared in court on a charge of unlawfully taking the girl with the intent to have sexual connection with her.

A complaint about the article was made by the young man’s grandmother Christine Teirney. She said his name should not have been published as he had not yet been charged with a crime. She added that her grandson has mental health issues and at the time of the incident he was suffering a ‘psychotic episode’ triggered by meth use. It would never have happened if he had been monitored appropriately by his mental health team and his immediate whanau. She also said that publicising his name would cause even more damage.

The paper responded: “We are satisfied our story accurately reports this court hearing. This defendant has been charged with a crime, and the court has allowed his name to be published. Rules limit what other details we can report at this stage of the process.”

The Media Council can understand how painful this matter is to Ms Teirney, but it can see no basis for complaint that the article breached any journalistic or ethical principles. Name suppression is a matter for the court to determine. Indeed, there appears to have been an earlier suppression order, which was revoked at the reported hearing. In the absence of such a suppression order, it is generally appropriate for the news media to name a defendant. The Rotorua Daily Post was entitled to record what happened in court and such reporting is in the public interest.

The news media is the eyes and ears of the public in relation to Court hearings. Just as the public were entitled to be in the public part of the Courtroom when the hearing took place, so are the public entitled to learn the details of the case from the news media if there was a reporter in Court.

There was no evidence to show the reporting was inaccurate, unfair, an infringement of privacy or a breach of any other Media Council Principles.

Decision: No Grounds to Proceed