NZ Veterinary Association against the Bay of Plenty Times
Case Number: 3888
Council Meeting: 20 July 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Bay of Plenty Times
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Privacy
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. The NZ Veterinary Association (NZVA) complained about an article in the Bay of Plenty Times online where the owner of a dog that was euthanised spoke about how it was done against his wishes. The NZVA complains under Principle (1) that the article fails to uphold the standards of fairness, balance, context, and responsible reporting.
2. The NZVA also complains against Principle (2) - Privacy as the vet was named “Despite no completed regulatory findings, the article identified the veterinarian, her husband and business partner, and their veterinary practice. This has resulted in significant reputational harm, hostile commentary, and distress for them.“
The Article
3. The article published on May 20 on the Bay of Plenty Times website had the headline: Western Bay of Plenty dog owner files complaint after vet euthanises dog.
4. It has an interview with Jonathan Mountfort, the owner of a dog Buster who was euthanized at Omokoroa Pet Vets in April. The dog had been taken to the vets by Mr Mountfort’s mother. It was acknowledged the dog’s breathing was laboured. The dog was believed to be developing laryngeal paralysis. The dog had also been stuck on the grille of the mother’s car on its back leg the day before.
5. Mr Mountfort said his mother told him that the vet wanted to put Buster down. Despite a tense conversation with the vet in which Mr Mountfort wanted to take the dog home, he ultimately told the vet there was nothing he could do to change their mind.
The Complaint
6. This complaint is made under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (2) Privacy.
7. The NZVA said the article fell short of responsible reporting by relying heavily on a single complainant where matters were still under investigation by the Veterinary Council. It acknowledges the complainant's view may be genuine but complains it was a detailed emotional narrative of disputed events.
8. It says while comment was sought from the vet and the Veterinary Council, meaningful balance was impossible while they were bound legally on what they could publicly disclose.
9. It said a privacy waiver did not override professional obligations. “By seeking comment, the article created an impression of balance while disregarding the veterinarian’s limitations in responding.“
10. The NZVA said the article repeatedly highlighted the claims that the dog was euthanised against its owner’s wishes, while the core question: Whether the veterinarian acted appropriately, remains under investigation compromising the integrity of the regulatory process.
11. Among its arguments was that there was insufficient context around the welfare considerations and that readers would not be able to appreciate the considerations involved.
12. The Veterinary Council pointed out that the name of the council’s registrar was spelled wrong in the original article.
13. They also complained that the article identified the veterinarian, her husband and business partner and the practice, noting it had suffered reputational harm, hostile commentary and distress.
14. “We question whether doing so was fair in the circumstances and whether the public interest in naming the veterinarians and veterinary practice outweighed the highly foreseeable risk of significant and potentially enduring harm arising from publication before the regulatory process had reached its conclusion.”
The Response
15. The Bay of Plenty Times responded that it strongly maintains it has accurately quoted all sources. No evidence has been produced to the contrary.
16. It says Mr Mountfort had every right to speak out about his experience. It says the Bay of Plenty Times, like all responsible mainstream media, vigorously defends this freedom of speech as part of this country’s democracy and free media.
17. Mr Mountfort’s claims and our questions based on them were put to the vet clinic for a right of reply. “The clinic provided a written statement in response which was published and was accurately and fairly reflected in the article, both as a summary paragraph high up and substantively further down.”
18. The reporter at the Bay of Plenty Times obtained a privacy waiver from Mr Mountfort and supplied this to the clinic. The vets said they could not talk about it but outlined their responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act. A similar response was published from the Veterinary Council.
19. The Bay of Plenty Times acknowledged that the name of the registrar of the council was spelled incorrectly in the original article but was quickly corrected. It also added a transparency statement that the name has been corrected at the end of the article. The only thing potentially missing was a time stamp.
The Discussion
Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
20. The Principle states publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.
21. The article clearly has information and quotes from the main players, Mr Mountfort and the vet and practice involved. Both were given the opportunity to speak. It was fairly stated that the vets involved would not comment on the specifics of the case.
22. The reporter has also gone to the Veterinary Council who similarly said they could not comment but provided quotes about the ethical duties required of a vet.
23. The veterinary practice was afforded a genuine opportunity to comment prior to publication. Although it declined to discuss the individual case, citing its inability to comment on specific matters, it nevertheless chose to explain the professional responsibilities veterinarians must consider in situations involving animal welfare. Those comments were reported fairly and accurately.
24. Readers were therefore presented with multiple perspectives and sufficient context to understand that the matter remained unresolved.
25. The publication of a story before the conclusion of a regulatory investigation does not, in itself, render reporting unbalanced or unfair. News organisations routinely report on complaints, investigations and legal proceedings before they are finally determined, provided the status of those matters is accurately conveyed. That was the case here.
26. The article by necessity relies on the account, opinions and interpretations of the dog owner - they are entitled to their honest opinion, even if that opinion later turns out to be inaccurate.
27. There can never be a point where reporting can only happen after a regulatory process has finished its investigation and made findings. A regulatory body should also not be used as a method of keeping information from the public.
28. The Bay of Plenty Times had an obligation to accurately report the facts, to ensure a balanced article and to correct any errors. They have done so.
29. The article does not breach Principle (1) and is not upheld.
Principle (2) Privacy
30. Under Principle (2) everyone is normally entitled to privacy of person, space and personal information although the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest.
31. The article identified a veterinarian acting in a professional capacity in the course of providing veterinary services. It did not disclose private information about the veterinarian's personal life or affairs. Rather, it reported on the actions of a professional in connection with a matter of public interest that had given rise to a complaint to the Veterinary Council.
32. The veterinarian's identity was not private. The veterinarian practises from a publicly accessible veterinary clinic and is identified by name on the practice's public website.
33. The article did not reveal information that was otherwise private or inaccessible to the public.
34. Nor does there seem to be any agreement or expectation that the veterinarian's identity would be withheld. Before publication, the veterinary practice was approached for comment and was given a full opportunity to respond. While it advised it could not comment on the specific circumstances of the case, it did provide a statement outlining the professional obligations that veterinarians must consider when making decisions regarding animal welfare. Those comments were included in the article.
35. The complaint also refers to the fact the Veterinary Council had not yet completed its investigation into the owner's complaint. However, the existence of an ongoing regulatory process does not, of itself, create an expectation of privacy or prevent the media from reporting on matters of legitimate public interest. The article accurately stated the status of the complaint and did not suggest that the Veterinary Council had reached any findings or conclusions.
36. In these circumstances, identifying the veterinarian did not constitute an intrusion into the veterinarian's privacy within the meaning of Principle (2).
37. The Media Council has sympathy for the vet in this case, as they have been restricted in their ability to respond, while the dog owner is able to freely comment. Although the matter is being investigated by the Veterinary Council, there are currently no suppression directions in place, therefore the publisher was within their rights to report the information.
38. The complaint under Principle (2) Privacy is not upheld.
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, Alison Thom, Jo Cribb, Susan Freeman-Greene, Andrew Chen, Deborah Morris, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff.
Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting