Julie Paques against Stuff
Case Number: 3845
Council Meeting: 16 March 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle: Privacy
Ruling Categories: Privacy
Overview
1. Julie Paques complains about an article Couple shot dead in their driveway – man hunt for son in a valley with a dark past published by Stuff on 17 December 2025. The complaint raises Media Council Principle (2) Privacy. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article reports on a homicide investigation launched following the discovery of two bodies on a driveway in Ruatiti. It provided information about the investigation and described the idyllic nature of the location, while juxtaposing this against a history of crime and violence that has also occurred in that area. Relevantly, when first published the article included the address of the property on which the bodies had been discovered.
The Complaint
3. Julie Paques, who is related to the deceased, complains that the address should not have been included in the article. Public interest in the deaths was high, and many people would have seen the address. This had the effect of seriously compromising the security of the property and the safety of anybody on it. She considers it was inappropriate and disgraceful to publish the address at such a tragic time and in such a high-profile situation. It caused significant distress to her and other members of her family.
The Response
4. After receiving the initial complaint (on 11 February 2026) Stuff responded to the complainant accepting that the address had been included in the article. Stuff also noted that the address was removed shortly after publication (on 17 December 2025). Stuff expressed regret that it had been published at all and agreed that publication was not appropriate in the circumstances. It noted that, although the information was publicly available, a senior editor had proactively removed it as soon as they saw it. It was live for just over an hour.
5. Stuff did not have anything further add to this in its formal response to the Media Council beyond noting that a senior editor intervened on their holidays to rectify the issue. They also provided a timeline of the edits made, which confirmed the address was removed one hour and 20 minutes after publication (ie. during the evening of 17 December 2025).
Final Comment
6. In her final comment the complainant disagrees that the address was publicly available, but in any event, notes that it is never acceptable for a publisher to highlight and publish an address for no good reason. She considers that what prompted the removal was contact from her solicitor, otherwise she considers the address would still be there. She also considers that it is dismissive of her family’s horrible experience to refer to the fact a senior editor had to take a break from their holiday in order to deal with this issue.
The Discussion
7. The complainant raises Media Council Principle (2) Privacy, which states:
Everyone is normally entitled to privacy of person, space and personal information and these rights should be respected by publications. Nevertheless, the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest. Publications should exercise particular care and discretion before identifying relatives of persons convicted or accused of crime where the reference to them is not relevant to the matter reported. Those suffering from trauma or grief call for special consideration.
8. Stuff has accepted that the address ought not to have been published. The Media Council agrees and accepts that its publication caused the complainant and her family significant distress at what must have been a devastating and harrowing time. The Council also notes that the fact an address may be discovered by a motived person searching other public databases is not a defence to inappropriate publication of an address. As we have previously noted, there is a considerable difference between someone taking the further step of searching such a database to discover this information and a newspaper publishing the exact address (Ruling 3478).
9. The complainant suggests that the address was present for considerably longer than Stuff states, and that what prompted Stuff to remove the address was correspondence from her solicitor. However, Stuff confirmed to the Media Council, on the basis of its internal logs, that the address was proactively removed one hour and 20 minutes after initial publication and before any complaint was made.
10. The Council accepts that the address was showing online for a relatively brief period of time and that Stuff noticed the error and fixed it quickly, without it being brought to their attention by anybody else. In these circumstances, we consider that the quick correction of the error, coupled with the immediate concession that the address ought not to have been published, means that the case does not meet the threshold for an uphold.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld
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, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom
Guy MacGibbon and Bernadette Courtney declared a conflict to interest and did not vote.