Janine Sax against Stuff

The Media Council has received two complaints from Ms Sax.

The first complaint referred to an article published by Stuff on July 9, 2020, titled Neighbours at war: 'You gave my rabbits laxatives'

This was about a court battle involving allegations of pet-poisoning and harassment in relation to neighbouring rabbit breeders Joanne McMillan and Janine Sax. Ms Sax said the article breached Media Council Principles (1), (4), (6), (10), (11) and (12).

The Council did not accept this complaint for consideration as it was filed well outside its time limits for filing complaints.  However, the fact that it was published is a matter of background that we take into account.

The second complaint which has been accepted was about a follow-up story published on August 10, 2025, headlined 'I live in fear': Woman 'in hiding' as bunny breeders' feud escalates.

The story reported how the legal battles continued to affect Ms McMillan five years after she admitted her involvement in a plot to spread rabbit calicivirus to Ms Sax’s property. She is quoted in the article as saying that Ms Sax continued to harass her, that the legal actions had ruined her life and how she had gone into hiding to avoid being served more legal papers.

The article detailed some of the proceedings which Ms Sax has pursued including:

• An application for a restraining order, which the district court dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. This was appealed to the High Court along with an application to waive security for costs. After this was declined Ms Sax took the matter to the Court of Appeal twice without success.
• A failed Disputes Tribunal claim against a builder who made her a rabbit enclosure. An appeal to the High Court was dismissed.
• A failed High Court application to appeal a $15,000 judgement which the judge said fell into the “hopeless case” category.

The article reported Ms Sax declined to comment for the story.

Ms Sax complained the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, (6) Headlines and Captions, (7) Discrimination, and (12) Corrections.

“It has caused me significant harm and prejudice in the context of ongoing legal proceedings and harassment, where Stuff’s reporting has already been weaponised against me, and Stuff are fully aware of this."

“Prior to publication, before 4.30pm on 8 August 2025, I forwarded to Mr Wall, court documents and affidavits (off the record and under coercion) summarising the true position before the courts. Mr Wall’s article materially diverges from that evidence to characterise me as a vexatious litigant."

She said the article made misleading reference to restraining orders which were made against her in her absence, included untested allegations by Ms McMillan.

It presented Ms McMillan’s claims that she was “living in fear” as if proven. It also failed to disclose that allegations, such as Ms McMillan’s claim that service of documents was harassing her, had already been tested and dismissed by the Court in 2021.

She added that the headline exaggerated Ms McMillan’s narrative and that the article portrayed her as the aggressor while minimising Ms McMillan’s conduct.

Ms Sax also objected to an illustration which ran at the top of the story which she said was an offensive cartoon depicting her as fat and aggressive.

“These publications are false, misleading, injurious, and defamatory, and may expose me to further hostility from an online smear campaign.”

In its response Stuff said it stood by its reporting. The story was largely based on fair and balanced reporting of court judgments. It also dismissed her claim that the illustration portrayed her as fat.

Stuff added it offered Ms Sax an opportunity to comment publicly ahead of publication, but she chose not to.

The Media Council notes that Ms Sax has submitted numerous legal documents to support her complaint including submissions in various Court proceedings. They set out legal arguments, but they do not provide clear evidence to show the Stuff article breached the principles cited by Ms Sax.

As Stuff has said the article was largely based on Court judgements. The Council does not believe its reference to now lapsed restraining orders was inaccurate or that it was wrong to report an order issued against Ms Sax, even though she argues it was issued in her absence.

The Council notes that the article might have been more balanced if it had included comment from Ms Sax, but she declined the opportunity to give her side of things when she was approached by Stuff.  Ms Sax has not corroborated her claims of error, and the Council is not satisfied that material errors were made.

The Council could also not see anything to support her argument about the way she was depicted in the artwork. The Illustration was a cartoon of two women standing by the scales of justice. Neither of the figures were identified, identifiable or “fat” as claimed.  They are plainly cartoon figures not based on any person’s actual appearance.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.