Cindy Bellamy against the New Zealand Herald

The New Zealand Herald and 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 was about a 19-year-old who appeared in court charged with abducting a 3-year-old girl from a Rotorua early childhood centre for sex.  The man entered no plea to the charge of unlawfully taking the girl with the intent to have sexual connection with her.

Cindy Bellamy complained the article’s use of terms such as “for sex” and “sexual connection” was misleading and harmful, particularly when applied to a child.

“This language implicitly adopts the perspective of the alleged offender, suggesting — however unintentionally — that such acts can be described in morally neutral or even positively connoted terms. In doing so, it risks normalising or softening the public’s perception of a violent and non-consensual crime against a very young child.”

“My concern is that, without explanatory context, such terminology may minimise or sanitise the crime’s severity in the public’s perception, particularly for readers who may not interpret it negatively.”

In her view the article breached Media Council Principles (1), Accuracy, Fairness and Balance (2) Privacy (3) Children and Young People (6) Headlines and Captions (7) Discrimination and Diversity, and (9) Subterfuge.

In response NZME explained that its court reporters had to use the language used in court proceedings or court documents.

“To do otherwise would mean the story is not a fair, accurate or balanced report of a court proceeding. As well our duties to be fair. accurate, and balanced, we are very mindful of our legal obligations to ensure our reporting does not jeopardise the justice process. Using language as suggested by you could mean, for example, that a defendant's lawyer argues our report has risked their client's fair trial rights.”

The Media Council notes that the phrase “sexual connection” is used in s128 of the Crimes Act to refer to a sex crime that is not rape. It also notes that the words “for sex” and sexual connection” are used in Courts in relation to sex crimes, and it was appropriate to use them in this article.

The Council can understand the complainant’s concern that the word “sex” was used in relation to a three-year-old.  However, it was used because this was obviously an appalling crime, involving extraordinary cruelty and breach of trust.  The public is entitled to know about it.  We do not agree that the language tends to minimise or sanitise the crime's severity in the public perception.  To the contrary by the juxtaposition of the words "3 year old" and "sex" it emphasises the severity of what happened.

The Media Council accepts NZME’s observation that it is obliged to confine its reporting to what is said in court or court documents.

The Media Council notes this article was a brief report of a preliminary hearing where information is often very limited. Details of alleged crimes are usually only disclosed at later court hearings, either during a trial or at sentencing.

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

Decision:  No grounds to proceed