James Arnott against the Otago Daily Times

The Otago Daily Times ran two articles reporting allegations of overcrowding at the Dunedin Social Club nightclub. The first, published on May 16, 2025, was titled Women ‘trampled’ at Octagon bar. A follow-up story on May 20, 2025, was titled Bouncer claims overcrowding concerns led to sacking.

The first story reported the comment of four women who said they were stood on, trampled and trapped under a packed crowd of dancers.  The second story was based on an interview with a former bouncer who said he was sacked after going to the police with concerns about overcrowding. Both articles included comment from the nightclub owner James Arnott.

Mr Arnott’s first complaint related to the May 16 article. He asked for a correction - the venue’s maximum capacity was 215 people and not 250 as reported – and the on-line story was corrected promptly.

Two days later he wrote a further letter of complaint saying the article contained serious but unverified accounts of injuries and overcrowding. He said no formal complaints were made to staff, police, or licensing authorities at the time and this lack of context risked misleading readers and unfairly damaged the reputation of the venue and team.

He said they had not seen any evidence that claims in the article had been independently verified and without transparency they were unable to investigate or respond meaningfully to the reporting.

Mr Arnott also claimed the article lacked balance as it devoted considerable space to untested allegations from patrons but gave limited attention to the nightclub’s position or any operational context. There was no reference to capacity controls, the absence of complaints, or steps taken by staff on the nights in question.

He complained the articles breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, and (12) Corrections.

In response the Otago Daily Times said the May 16 article was based on consistent, corroborated accounts from four patrons whose motivations were assessed as genuine, and its reporting was in the public interest.

It said it was not obliged to disclose its verification methods or share notes or transcripts especially when confidentiality was assured to sources.

“We believe the venue’s position was fairly represented in both the May 16 article and the May 20 article. The venue's response/side of the story is introduced within the first 3-4 sentences in both stories and in both cases that sentence makes it clear the venue disputes the claims. In both stories fuller comment from the venue is added after the complainants' information."

“About half of the May 20 article is dedicated to the venue's response and includes key operational responses and acknowledged disputes over the bouncer’s account.”

The Media Council considered these articles were in the public interest as they raised concerns about safety in a crowded night club. It also believes the stories were handled responsibly and notes the Otago Daily Times swiftly corrected the venue capacity figure when it was drawn to its attention.

The Media Council can understand Mr Arnott’s concern that these stories could affect his business, but he has not provided evidence of other inaccuracies. The Council was also not persuaded that the reporting was unfair or unbalanced as he was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations made by patrons who said they were trampled and the bouncer who said he was fired after reporting his concerns to the police.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.