Danielle McCallion against the Waikato Times
Case Number: 3893
Council Meeting: 31 August 2026
Decision: Not Upheld with Dissent
Publication: Waikato Times
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Discrimination and Diversity
Confidentiality
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Headlines and Captions
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. On 17 June 2026 the Waikato Times published an article headlined Methamphetamine supply charges in wake of fatal crash that claimed life of US tourists 'denied and remains denied.' The article is a report on court proceedings, with background on the crash and the two people who died.
2. The complainant, Danielle McCallion, was the defendant in the court case covered in the article. She was charged with possession of methamphetamine for supply and having a listed substance in her blood.
3. Ms McCallion complained that the article breaches six principles: (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (2) Privacy; (4) Comment and Fact; (6) Headlines and Captions; (7) Discrimination and Diversity and (8) Confidentiality.
The Article
4. The article reports on proceedings at Tokoroa District Court in June 2026, where the defendant was charged with drug offences, including supplying methamphetamine and driving with a listed substance in her blood, that arose from her involvement in a fatal crash.
5. The “lead charge” – possession of methamphetamine for supply - was “denied and remains denied”.
6. The defendant was not present due to a misunderstanding and had presented at another court expecting to appear by audio visual link.
7. A one-day Judge-alone trial date was set down for 23 July 2026.
8. The article includes background on the two American tourists who died in the crash, tributes from friends, and a photo of them.
9. The report says police “cannot rule out further charges” and calls for any witnesses to the crash to contact police.
The Complaint
10. Ms McCallion’s complaint of 14 July 2026 is that the headline and article mislead the reader into an assumption or belief that she caused the crash, and unfairly associates her with the tourists’ deaths, risking damage to her reputation. She provides an outline of her version of events, including that the American tourists’ car crossed the centre line to cause the crash.
11. She asks the Waikato Times to correct the ‘misleading impression’ created by the article, publish a clarification that she has not been charged with causing the crash, and review the article for accuracy, fairness and balance.
The Response
12. The Waikato Times’ response of 16 July 2026 is that the story is a tragic one for all involved. The Waikato Times had reported on the fact that drug charges were laid following Ms McCallion’s involvement in a crash that was fatal. The article does not imply blame for the crash.
13. The article consciously reports on the fact that the crash is still under investigation. Any link between the crash and the charges is unavoidable as the charges were laid after Ms McCallion’s involvement in the crash.
14. Court stories do not report on things that did not occur and it would be confusing and potentially misleading to the reader to list charges that were not laid. The publisher cannot report on Ms McCallion’s version of the crash as that could not be verified, but a copy of the crash report had been requested from police.
15. The publisher saw no reason to make any changes to the article at that time but would continue to report on the case through to its conclusion.
16. It is to be noted that at a later court appearance, Ms McCallion pleaded guilty to both the supplying methamphetamine and drug driving charges. She was significantly over the “high risk limit” for methamphetamine in her blood, the Waikato Times noted in its report on that appearance. The Waikato Times was also able to report that the tourists’ car was on the wrong side of the road in the crash and headlined on that fact: US tourists killed in crash between Hamilton and Tauranga were ‘on the wrong side of the road’. This information is in the public domain so has been considered in adjudicating the complaint.
The Discussion
17. Ms McCallion has not given reasons why she believes four of the six principles have been breached, and the Media Council can see nothing in the article to suggest that they have been breached. They are Principle (2) – Privacy, Principle (4) - Comment and Fact, Principle (7) - Discrimination and Diversity, Principle (8) - Confidentiality.
18. The two remaining Principles are Principle (1) - Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (6) - Headlines and Captions.
Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance:
“Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.”
Principle (6) Headlines and captions:
“Headlines, sub-headings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover.”
19. The crash that claimed the lives of two tourists was high profile, and it was newsworthy that the driver of the other car involved faced drug charges as a direct result of the crash.
20. The article and the headline report the facts available at the time of the preliminary court hearing this Waikato Times report is based on. They simply state that drug charges, including drug driving and supplying methamphetamine, were brought against Ms McCallion as a result of her involvement in the crash; and that she denied the supply charge.
21. Some in the Media Council have sympathy for Ms McCallion’s complaint about the way the story was written, and others think there was little the Waikato Times could have done to mitigate any inference the reader might have taken. Regardless, at the time this story was written the court had not been presented with any information on the cause of the crash. The police inquiry was still underway. The Waikato Times acted responsibly by relying on the facts presented in court.
22. It was reasonable for the Waikato Times to include background on the tourists who died in its report. The inclusion of positive biographical material about them implies nothing about where the blame for the crash lies.
23. Ms McCallion complained that the article unfairly associated her with the fatalities and risked damaging her reputation. However, it was Ms McCallion’s own actions that put her before the court, and in the news.
24. In a later court appearance, Ms McCallion pleaded guilty to both the supplying methamphetamine and drug driving charges. She was significantly over the “high risk limit” for methamphetamine in her blood, the Waikato Times noted in its report on that appearance. The Waikato Times was also able to report that the tourists’ car was on the wrong side of the road in the crash and headlined on that fact: US tourists killed in crash between Hamilton and Tauranga were ‘on the wrong side of the road’. This later report explained clearly what had happened and removed any implications that Ms McCallion caused the crash. However it showed that she had pleaded guilty to a serious driving offence. That prosecution resulted from the crash.
24. The complaint is not upheld.
Dissent by Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoai, Rachael Heslop, Alison Thom
The minority would have upheld this complaint.
While the article may be factually correct, a reasonable reader could easily infer from the facts as presented that Ms McCallion caused the crash.
Principle (1) requires that publications should not “deliberately mislead… by commission or omission.” The omission of clarifying content may not have been deliberate when the article was first published, but when Ms McCallion complained to the publisher that she believed the article was misleading, it was open to the publisher to make a clarification. The publisher chose not to amend the article.
The Waikato Times could have amended the article to specify that Ms McCallion was not charged with causing the accident. It could have said that there was nothing to show that the methamphetamine found or the charges against Ms McCallion had any relation to the cause of the crash.
The Waikato Times’ response that it is not their role to list all the charges not laid overstates the requested remedy. Ms McCallion asked for a specific correction, not a complete list of charges she was not subject to.
The Waikato Times further argues that it is the nature of court reporting that the facts are reported on. However, the article also re-reports on the crash, including a photo of the deceased couple and their friends’ memories of them. This adds a layer of emotion beyond the simple facts of the case, and risks balancing the article against Ms McCallion.
The fact that Ms McCallion was subsequently convicted with driving with a large quantity of a listed substance in her blood is irrelevant to the cause of the accident. She had not been charged with causing the accident because of that methamphetamine use, but that is the implication that many readers would have drawn.
The headline accurately reflects Ms McCallion’s not guilty plea in relation to the drug charges, which is arguably the main point of the article. However, it also connects the drug charges being laid “in the wake” of the crash – the implication potentially being that drugs were in some way to blame for the crash.
It is factually correct that the drug charges came about as a result of the crash, in that the police found Ms McCallion in possession of the drugs at the scene; however, it is not factually proven that Ms McCallion was somehow at fault or that drug use caused the crash. When read collectively with the article, the combination of headline and article has the potential to mislead the reader.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoai, Rachael Heslop
Bernadette Courtney and Deborah Morris declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.