MJ* against the Southland Times
Case Number: 3736
Council Meeting: 28 April 2025
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: Southland Times
Principle: Privacy
Ruling Categories:
The Southland Times published an article on February 28, 2025, headlined Sock shoved in mouth of victim. An online version
of the article was run under a headline that was amended the same day to read Repeat offender jailed for violent assault.
This was a court report of the sentencing of a man who was jailed for 19 months for strangling and assaulting a woman he was in an intimate relationship with. The report outlined in some detail the police summary of the offending. It also reported that the offender had 51 previous convictions, of which 17 were violence related.
Although she was not named in the story, the victim – identified here as MJ* - complained that the publication was in breach of Media Council Principle (2) Privacy.
“I feel that my privacy hasn't been taken into consideration when publishing this very traumatic assault. Invercargill is a very small community where myself and the offender have both lived our entire lives.
By naming the offender and going into a lot of detail about the assault this has identified me through the story that was published. My family and friends did not know that this had happened as I wanted to deal with it privately and focus on my healing.
I was very shocked to realise that this had been published after being sent it by several people who had immediately made the connection that I was the victim from the story that had been published. I had also described the impact that this had on my mental health as it has deteriorated significantly, I have isolated myself at home in fear of people approaching me and public and discussing the article.
I feel re-victimized, humiliated and degraded by the headlines that were published and the very intimate personal details of the story. This article has no current impact on the person that you stated needed to be held responsible. The courts have made him accountable and have sentence him to a jail term accordingly. He has no access to the newspaper or online article.
You stated that the public had a right to know about this person's actions, if so give his name, charges and sentence outcome, the very traumatic details of the assault did not need to be publicised.
My biggest concern going forward for others that this article is going to be a barrier for people that are in unsafe situations wanting to access the help they need in fear of the their traumatic experiences being publicised. The consequences of this could result in a loss of someone's life.
I also said I had concerns about the headline and felt that it was very distasteful and was used as an attention grabbing statement. What you have agreed to edit online which I see has been done in the story but still appears the same when you search the original article.
The last thing I need is for someone down the track to come across this online article, that does not know and approach me again. I want to heal and move forward. Not living in fear that this may be addressed again in the future because the article is still accessible online.
I do not give consent for any of the information in this complaint to be used in any articles going forward".
MJ* complained to the Southland Times the day the story was published. Stuff, as publisher of the Southland Times, responded by amending the online article’s headline and stating “….as an act of good faith, it was decided the headline and intro of the story would be edited. This was not something we were required to do.” Stuff added that the media had the right to cover public court hearings in the interest of open justice. Given there was no suppression order, they published the details of the assault. They advised her that she would need a court order for the online story to be removed.
Media Council Principle (2) Privacy 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 publications 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.”
The Media Council sympathises with the complainant for the violence she suffered and for the additional stress caused by coverage of this case where family and friends were able to identify her as the victim. It was unfortunate they were able to guess that she was the victim. This can happen in cases where people know the accused and who they associate with.
The Court system is required by law to be open to the public and the news media, serving as the eyes and ears of the community, have the important role of informing the public. Information about the prosecution of people charged with serious offences is a matter of significant public interest. The courts and the statutes that bind them do have regard to privacy. There are statutory restrictions about what can be reported, and judges have a wide discretion to suppress names and other details. Automatic protection from publication of the complainant’s identity is provided for in cases of sexual offending and where the complainant is under 18 years of age. In other cases, where publication of the identity of the defendant will be likely to result in undue hardship to the victim, the court may forbid publication of identifying particulars of the defendant. However it seems that no such protection applies to or was sought for the complainant.
Although it was reasonable for the Southland Times to report this case as it did, it was commendable that it tried to meet MJ’s complaint with changes that softened the headline and first sentence in the online version of the story.
The Media Council does not consider there is a case to show a breach of Principle (2) which says in part the right of privacy should not interfere with publications of significant matters of public record or public interest.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.
This was a court report of the sentencing of a man who was jailed for 19 months for strangling and assaulting a woman he was in an intimate relationship with. The report outlined in some detail the police summary of the offending. It also reported that the offender had 51 previous convictions, of which 17 were violence related.
Although she was not named in the story, the victim – identified here as MJ* - complained that the publication was in breach of Media Council Principle (2) Privacy.
“I feel that my privacy hasn't been taken into consideration when publishing this very traumatic assault. Invercargill is a very small community where myself and the offender have both lived our entire lives.
By naming the offender and going into a lot of detail about the assault this has identified me through the story that was published. My family and friends did not know that this had happened as I wanted to deal with it privately and focus on my healing.
I was very shocked to realise that this had been published after being sent it by several people who had immediately made the connection that I was the victim from the story that had been published. I had also described the impact that this had on my mental health as it has deteriorated significantly, I have isolated myself at home in fear of people approaching me and public and discussing the article.
I feel re-victimized, humiliated and degraded by the headlines that were published and the very intimate personal details of the story. This article has no current impact on the person that you stated needed to be held responsible. The courts have made him accountable and have sentence him to a jail term accordingly. He has no access to the newspaper or online article.
You stated that the public had a right to know about this person's actions, if so give his name, charges and sentence outcome, the very traumatic details of the assault did not need to be publicised.
My biggest concern going forward for others that this article is going to be a barrier for people that are in unsafe situations wanting to access the help they need in fear of the their traumatic experiences being publicised. The consequences of this could result in a loss of someone's life.
I also said I had concerns about the headline and felt that it was very distasteful and was used as an attention grabbing statement. What you have agreed to edit online which I see has been done in the story but still appears the same when you search the original article.
The last thing I need is for someone down the track to come across this online article, that does not know and approach me again. I want to heal and move forward. Not living in fear that this may be addressed again in the future because the article is still accessible online.
I do not give consent for any of the information in this complaint to be used in any articles going forward".
MJ* complained to the Southland Times the day the story was published. Stuff, as publisher of the Southland Times, responded by amending the online article’s headline and stating “….as an act of good faith, it was decided the headline and intro of the story would be edited. This was not something we were required to do.” Stuff added that the media had the right to cover public court hearings in the interest of open justice. Given there was no suppression order, they published the details of the assault. They advised her that she would need a court order for the online story to be removed.
Media Council Principle (2) Privacy 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 publications 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.”
The Media Council sympathises with the complainant for the violence she suffered and for the additional stress caused by coverage of this case where family and friends were able to identify her as the victim. It was unfortunate they were able to guess that she was the victim. This can happen in cases where people know the accused and who they associate with.
The Court system is required by law to be open to the public and the news media, serving as the eyes and ears of the community, have the important role of informing the public. Information about the prosecution of people charged with serious offences is a matter of significant public interest. The courts and the statutes that bind them do have regard to privacy. There are statutory restrictions about what can be reported, and judges have a wide discretion to suppress names and other details. Automatic protection from publication of the complainant’s identity is provided for in cases of sexual offending and where the complainant is under 18 years of age. In other cases, where publication of the identity of the defendant will be likely to result in undue hardship to the victim, the court may forbid publication of identifying particulars of the defendant. However it seems that no such protection applies to or was sought for the complainant.
Although it was reasonable for the Southland Times to report this case as it did, it was commendable that it tried to meet MJ’s complaint with changes that softened the headline and first sentence in the online version of the story.
The Media Council does not consider there is a case to show a breach of Principle (2) which says in part the right of privacy should not interfere with publications of significant matters of public record or public interest.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.