Make a Complaint Make a Complaint

Nicola Robb against The Post

Case Number: 3864

Council Meeting: 20 April 2026

Decision: Not Upheld

Publication: The Post

Principle: Privacy

Ruling Categories: Privacy

Overview

1. Nicola Robb complains about an article Levin woman’s death in Wellington not suspicious, coroner finds published by The Post on 16 February 2026. The complaint raises Media Council Principle (2) Privacy. The complaint is not upheld.

The Article

2. The article reports the findings of a coroner in relation to a woman whose body was found in Wellington Harbour. The article notes the coroner’s conclusion that the woman died by suicide. The article contains some details of the evidence supporting this conclusion and, in part, this evidence related to the woman’s relationship with her family.

The Complaint

3. Nicola Robb complains that the article went into unnecessary detail and that this was not in the public interest. Her concerns are clearly set out in her initial correspondence with The Post, where she noted that death by suicide is already profoundly difficult, without private background information being published. These are details that the whānau were likely to have kept confidential and shared only with trusted people. There is a legitimate role for reporting on coronial findings where these include recommendations aimed at preventing future deaths by suicide, however, the coroner’s findings in this case contained nothing of this nature.

4. In particular, she complains that the material in the article breaches Media Council Principle (2) Privacy, as the coroner’s detailed findings were neither matters of significant public record nor of public interest. She contends that the only facts properly within the public interest were the name of the deceased and the coroner’s finding that the death was by suicide. She also draws attention to Principle (2), which states that “those suffering from trauma or grief call for special consideration.” She notes that members of the general public seeking access to coronial information must follow a formal process to request a copy of a coroner’s report, and that such reports may have sensitive information redacted, thereby limiting public access to personal details. In this case, the matter was dealt with ‘on the papers’, meaning there was no public inquest hearing and no direct public access to the information published in the article.

5. Given the circumstances surrounding the process of identifying the deceased (which included a call from the police to the media and general public for information) the complainant can understand the release of the deceased’s name; that was in the public interest. However, it was not appropriate to report on the coroner’s decision in the same way as a news report of criminal proceedings in the courts.  She asks for the article to be removed to maintain the deceased’s reputation, dignity and mana without details of her life and death that the public do not need to know being in the public arena.

6. In her formal complaint to the Media Council, Ms Robb rejects The Post’s initial response that it had reported the facts “as sparingly and sensitively as possible, while retaining the necessary context.” She reiterates her core concerns and refers to the views of two professionals with experience in suicide-related matters, who independently suggested that the level of detail in the article was unusual and may have compounded the family’s grief.

7. Ms Robb acknowledges that there can be a legitimate public interest in some information being reported, particularly where a family has given consent and the information may help address systemic gaps that could prevent future deaths. However, she notes that the coroner made no findings or recommendations of public value in this case. Publishing these details has exposed the family to deeply personal questions they should not be subjected to.


The Response

8. In its formal response, The Post stated that it received a proactive media alert from the Coroner’s Court regarding the findings into the death. The alert advised that publication was embargoed for five days and recorded the coroner’s finding of suicide. It did not specify any reporting restrictions beyond those imposed by the Coroners Act 2006, relating to reporting on the method of death.

9. The Post notes that reporting on the findings of inquests is very common. In this case the death was widely reported when initially discovered, in part due to where the deceased’s body was located but also because the police sought the public’s help with identification. For this reason, The Post thought it appropriate to report on the inquest findings. A very experienced court reporter was assigned to the story.

10. The Post notes that the Media Council’s Principle on privacy states that the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest. The Post considered this reporting meets both tests. The name of the deceased was printed at the time of her death. In refusing name suppression at that time, the coroner ruled that there was no expectation of privacy.  The subsequent finding of suicide was proactively released to the media without any suppression or restriction placed on any of the details reported.

11. The Post notes that the coroner’s inquest report is very detailed, but that the details included in the story were used sparing and treated sensitively. These details provide context to the circumstances leading to the death and the coroner’s ultimate findings. It considers that role of the media in this context is to provide an accurate account of the findings and any relevant circumstances considered by the court. The Post appreciates that publishing these details may be upsetting for the family but believes this is unavoidable in the case of the sudden death of a loved one in these circumstances. It has otherwise abided by the restrictions for media set out in the Coroner’s Act 2006.

12. The Post notes that Ms Robb quotes grief experts and academics regarding the risk of suicide reporting and the special consideration that should be given to families when reporting details. The Post accepts that the academic research on suicide reporting focuses on the risk of contagion and the impact of reporting on families, however, it stresses that the media, while operating within the bounds of the law, are expected to make independent calls on the value of the information published in a story.  In its view there has been a significant shift in the nature of suicide reporting with friends and family of victims now more commonly talking to media to help dispel suicide myths, and to address the high numbers of suicides in New Zealand. 

13. The Post also notes that Ms Robb does not argue that the deceased’s privacy has been breached, but rather that the deceased’s family’s privacy has been breached. However, the news story does not name or even identify a family member, beyond referring broadly to family issues. This was material to the coroner's findings and was not gratuitously reported.

Final Comment

14. In her final comment Ms Robb maintains her position, highlighting that the article generated a lot of concern and negative discussion in suicide bereavement support groups.  She also provided the Media Council with emails from others who were concerned about the reporting that had been sent to The Post and supported her complaints.

The Discussion

15. 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.

16. The Media Council understands that further reporting on this tragic event would be hard for everyone involved. The Council also accepts that the effect of reporting on those people is something that must be taken into account when deciding what to publish. However, that must be balanced against the importance of media being able to report on matters of significant public interest.

17. Reporting on coroner’s findings is an important part of the media’s role and in this case, we consider there was a strong degree of public interest in the death, in part because of the police request to the public for help identifying the deceased in the early stages of the investigation. This bought nationwide attention to the death, and we accept The Post’s statement that reporting on the coroner’s ultimate findings was appropriate in these circumstances. This is supported by the fact that the Coroner’s Court itself put out a media alert on the coroner’s findings, suggesting a recognition of the public interest in this case.

18. The complainant suggests that the reporting should have been limited to the finding of suicide, and ought not to have included details about the circumstances leading to the death. She does not think the coroner’s decision should be treated in the same way as other court reporting. However, media play an important role in role reporting on the work of the courts and tribunals. This contributes to a number of important principles including open justice, the rights to a fair trial and being the ‘eyes and ears’ of the public. Parties to tribunal or court cases can expect that those matters may be reported on, unless there are suppression orders in place. In the case the coroner’s decision itself did suppress some of the evidence which suggests the coroner did turn their mind to the question of suppression. However, they did not suppress the information the complainant is concerned about.

19. Ultimately, the details put forward in the article were in the public domain and it came down to editorial discretion as to what was included.  The article reported matters accurately, and family members were not named or identified. Although we have great sympathy for all those involved, we conclude that the article did not breach Principle (2) Privacy.

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, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom  

Bernadette Courtney declared a conflict of interest and did not vote
Deborah Morris declared a conflict of interest and left the room