Louise Stalker against The Press
Case Number: 3811
Council Meeting: 1 December 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: The Press
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Errors
Headlines and Captions
Privacy
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. This was a complaint brought by Louise Stalker against The Press alleging that an article about a neighbour dispute was inaccurate and unbalanced. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article in question was published in The Press on 11 October 2025 and is headed “Neighbourly Dispute Over Land Use Escalates to Fist Fight”. It is about a dispute as to land use between two neighbours, Louise and Andrew Stalker on the one hand and Jo-Anne and Paul Campbell on the other. The Campbells were on a two-hectare triangle section in the area of the Selwyn District Council. The Stalkers lived directly across the road. In due course, relations with the Stalkers became strained, and when the Campbells sought to build a new house on their land, the Stalkers objected. There was a contested Resource Management Act (RMA) hearing. The article sets out how two years of bitter disputes between neighbours eventually escalated into a fist fight in December last year.
3. The article is focused on the decision of the Commissioner who presided at the hearing, Matt Bonis, in relation to the consent application where the Campbells sought to build their new home. It refers to Louise Stalker’s submission, where she said that the Campbells had “not been good neighbours”. She alleged that the Campbells were occupying a shed on their land, which directly interfered with the Stalkers’ rural view. The Stalkers’ submission is referred to as stating that the Campbells had intimidated them by following them in cars and interfering with their property and farming operation. The article refers to the Campbells’ case, which included a statement that the Stalkers allegedly put kites in trees on their property to trigger the Campbells’ floodlights.
4. The article refers to matters outside of the consent application. It reports matters coming to a head late last year when there was a fist fight between Mr Stalker and Mr Campbell. Police and an ambulance were called and “… and the pair were warned about their behaviour”. The Stalkers claimed that the Campbells were unlawfully living on their property.
5. Further grounds for the Stalkers’ opposition to the Campbells’ application for consent are also referred to. There are photos showing the shed and the nearby subdivision area. It is stated at the end of the article that the Campbells’ resource consent application was declined. It is stated that the Campbells declined to comment and that the Stalkers were approached for comment, (leaving the implication that they chose not to respond).
The Complaint
6. The complaint of Mrs Stalker raises Principles (1), (2), (4), (6) and (12). The central complaint is that the article was inaccurate, unbalanced and misleading. It is said that the article reframed what was a formal and ongoing resource management enforcement process as a “neighbourly dispute” and omitted crucial environmental and legal context. It is said that the publicity involved in the article caused professional reputational and personal harm. The Press had refused to correct or clarify any of the inaccuracies.
7. The tenor of the complaint is that this was a planning issue only and not a neighbourly dispute. The sentence that the Stalkers allegedly put kites in trees to trigger floodlights was stated by the Stalkers to be false, and that the kites were, in fact, lawfully used for pest control. This damaged their personal and professional reputation. It was complained that the article omitted to reference the environmental public health context and the fact that there had been various breaches of the restrictions and requirements by the Campbells. Mrs Stalker says the Campbells conducted earthworks, drilled a bore and lived full-time in a caravan and shed on the property without any resource consent. It is said that the article failed to report on the Commissioner’s findings, and a number of omissions are set out.
8. It is also said that there was a failure to report the extent of the high-level professional representation of the Campbells in contrast to their self-representation, and that there was a failure to report the fact that this was really a David-versus-Goliath type dispute. It was complained that there was an unbalanced portrayal of the submitters and the applicants.
9. Reference is also made to an inaccurate account of a police statement, where it is said that the article was wrong to say that the police had warned both men about their behaviour. Instead, the police had just attended and found no offence and issued no warning, caution or record.
10. As a further point, Mrs Stalker said that there should have been no comment on the decision within the 15 working day appeal period.
11. The complaint stated that by naming the parties, there was a breach of privacy and particularly given the fact that there was an implication of violence and aggression despite the police having taken no action. It was wrong to call the consent process a neighbourly dispute, and the headline therefore trivialised a complex environmental law decision. There should have been corrections, and since the publication of the articles, there have been vehicles cruising by the Stalkers causing fear and distress.
The Response
12. In a detailed response, The Press did not accept that the article was misleading. It had to be selective given the amount of available publishing space, but there were no inaccuracies, and there was no lack of balance. There was indeed a neighbour dispute that was at the heart of this, and the submissions themselves written by the Stalkers accepted this, when there was reference by them to the Campbells “not being good neighbours”. A physical altercation did indeed take place. In relation to the kite incident, the sentence describing it is preceded by the word “allegedly”. That report was based on allegations by neighbours.
13. The decision of the Commissioner in favour of the Stalkers was stated clearly. It was summarised by saying that the Commissioner did not agree that the effects were more than minor but did accept the assertion that building a home on the site would be inconsistent with the District Plan’s Zoning Rules and could potentially undermine the integrity of District Plans. The point is made that many of the matters raised in submissions were irrelevant to the decision and that the identity of the lawyers involved or the fact that lawyers were involved on one side and not another was not material to the facts. The article did not portray one side as victims or the other as obstructive.
14. In relation to the police warnings, the words used in the article were checked and confirmed by the police media team and confirmed as accurate. The reference was “police and an ambulance were called, and the pair were warned about their behaviour”. It was not suggested in the article that this was a formal police warning, which might appear on a police record. It was the police who were being quoted.
15. The complainant declined an opportunity offered by The Press prior to publication to comment, citing her concerns about the appeal period. It was stated that that was her prerogative but not a reason not to publish a report on the hearing and the Commissioner’s decision. Key points in the Stalkers’ submissions were included to ensure the article was fair to both parties. The media were within their rights to report on legal proceedings and did not have to wait to see whether there would be an appeal or not. However, if there were a successful appeal, that would be reported.
16. As to privacy, the Stalkers had participated in a public process with their name appearing in official documentation. Their names are part of the public record. There was no breach of privacy, and the reference to the fight was not gratuitous or inflammatory. It was reported factually.
17. There was a clear distinction between matters of comment and fact. The article did not editorialise or draw conclusions about the validity of the various claims. The headline fairly captured the essence of the article. The use of the term “neighbourly dispute” was both accurate and supported by the facts and submissions. No correction was necessary.
The Discussion
18. It was fair for The Press to refer to the events it was reporting as a “neighbourly dispute”. The Stalkers and the Campbells were literally neighbours, and they were in a dispute involving opposing each other in an RMA application, and scenes where the police were called. The language the Stalkers used was the language of dispute, asserting that the Campbells were not good neighbours. There was undoubtedly some sort of physical fight. There is nothing to doubt the accuracy of The Press’ assertion that The Press was quite right to say that the police had given a warning to both sides.
19. Further the article unambiguously and accurately reports the outcome of the resource consent application. The Stalkers, who were the complainants, successfully opposed the application and that was clear. While not every element of the decision was detailed, it was clear that what the Campbells were seeking was a non-complying use, and it is very clear that the consent was ultimately declined. The Commissioner did not agree that the effects were more than minor but did accept the assertion that building a home on the site would be inconsistent with the District Plan’s Zoning Rules and could potentially undermine the integrity of District Plans. It cannot be said that this report was inaccurate.
20. The Press cannot be criticised for not including all the details of the arguments on both sides. If anything, the Stalkers’ side of the story is given slightly greater weight than that of the Campbells. It did not have to report on the legal representation of both sides, and the fact that this was a David-versus-Goliath type of dispute. That would indeed have been a partisan observation, in favour of the Stalkers. It was not essential for accuracy or balance.
21. We do not consider it unfair to say that there was an “allegation” that the kites had been used by the Stalkers to set off the lights. The use of the word “allegedly” makes it clear that this is opinion and presumably arises from something that was said in the hearing. There is no suggestion that this was accepted by the Commissioner.
22. Inevitably, there is an element of selectivity in what is reported of a complex hearing. We do not consider that any bad practice has been shown on the part of The Press in this regard. As stated, the overall reporting was balanced and if anything could be said to favour the Stalkers. We agree with The Press that the media cannot be expected not to report the outcome of legal proceedings and certain of the key facts during the appeal period. They are able to comment on a public hearing and on the resulting decision, even if there is a prospect of appeal.
23. The report was on a matter of public interest and reporting on matters that were in the public record. We do not consider that there was any breach of privacy. In participating in a public process, the parties had to accept the danger of their actions and the views of their opponents being publicised.
24. Equally, we do not consider that the distinction between comment and fact was confused in the article. The article did not express the reporter’s opinions and was not conclusory in relation to the claims. As stated, we consider that the headline was accurate.
25. In the circumstances, we do not consider that there was any breach of any of the Media Council Principles by The Press on reporting on this decision. The parties may regard themselves as unlucky that their dispute attracted media attention, but that is always the risk of participating in any form of public hearing. There is a public interest in learning about the details of RMA hearings.
Decision
The Media Council concludes that there was no breach of Principles (1), (2), (4), (6) and (12), and the complaint is not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau
Guy MacGibbon and Deborah Morris declared a conflict of interest and did not vote