Reg Booth and Peter Pickett against the Waikato Times
Case Number: 3757
Council Meeting: 21 July 2025
Decision: Not Upheld with Dissent
Publication: Waikato Times
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Headlines and Captions
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. There are two complaints filed in relation to a Waikato Times article describing the driver of a truck who was convicted of careless driving causing death as “Killer Truckie”. They are not upheld (with dissent) on the basis that using the word “Killer” in the headline to describe the driver was not unfair or unbalanced. A separate complaint in relation to a different sub-headline was also not upheld.
The Article
2. On 29 April 2025 the Waikato Times published an online article headed “Killer truckie can keep driving as ‘lack of cycle lane’ blamed for cyclist’s death”. The print article was headed “Killer truckie can stay on driving, judge rules”. There was a sub-headline in the print article stating, “Inattention on the road led to Jessica Moser’s death, but lack of a cycle lane also a big factor”.
3. The article goes on to describe the tragic and deeply affecting death of a cyclist, Jessica Jacqueline Moser, who was run over and killed by a truck as she cycled to work. She had drawn up at the traffic lights on the corner of Tristram St, London St and Norton Rd in Hamilton at about the same time as a truck driven by Daniel Powell. Mr Powell had previously passed her. He signaled that he was intending to turn left. He could not see Ms Moser or her bicycle in his left-hand mirror. When the lights turned green, Ms Moser cycled straight ahead while Mr Powell commenced his left turn. Ms Moser died as a result of the impact that followed.
4. The article states that although Mr Powell had pleaded guilty to a charge of careless driving causing death, the judge sentenced him to a community-based sentence and did not disqualify him from driving. The judge appears to have accepted that the absence of a dedicated bike lane contributed to Ms Moser’s death.
The Complaint
5. The first complaint is from Reg Booth. He complains that both online and print headlines were unbalanced and unfair, as the driver was unwittingly caught in a tragic accident which was not of his own making. He says that the headlines were too strong, almost implying that Mr Powell was wholly to blame or “his moves were either deliberate or intentional”. Another newspaper had used the much softer headline of “Truckie who killed cyclist…”. The emphasis in the article makes Mr Powell seem, at least, highly culpable whereas he was found not to be highly culpable.
6. The second complaint is from Peter Pickett who asserts that the cyclist was primarily responsible for the accident. It was impossible for Mr Powell to see Ms Moser. The Waikato Times ignored mitigating factors, including the driver’s stated utmost remorse. In strong language he accuses the Waikato Times of abusing its powers and should pay reparations to Mr Powell.
The Response
7. The Waikato Times’ response to Mr Booth’s complaint emphasises the dictionary definition of the word “killer”. The word is used as a straight adjective. It was a “simple descriptor with no moral judgment attached”. A person who kills another can rightly be called a “killer”. The effect on the reporter in having to absorb the anguish of Ms Moser’s relatives is not something “easily forgotten or reconciled with the reckons of an armchair roading expert”. Mr Powell had been invited to comment.
8. In relation to Mr Pickett’s complaint the Waikato Times emphasises that the heading was accurate and succinct. “Words and their meaning matter and we are deliberate in their use, especially when it comes to court reporting. It's hard to argue that someone who killed a cyclist is not a killer, given the strict definition of that word.” The Waikato Times was doing no more than reporting on what the judge had said. It does not think that the use of the word “killer” was inappropriate. The editor’s response concludes “I'm not saying the wording 'killer driver' or the like would never be used again by this outlet, but if it were ever in consideration again, I'd have a good think on your points.”
The Discussion
9. The key issue is the use of the word “Killer” at the start of the headline. As the Waikato Times points out, the dictionary definition is “a person that kills”. That is indeed the first definition in the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary. The second definition of “Killer” in that dictionary is that it means “a murderer”. The word can also be used to mean “an excellent thing”. The word has multiple definitions depending on the context. It can be used as either a noun or an adjective. In this article, it was used as an adjective. The context, apart from the use of the word itself, does not indicate a deliberate killing.
10. The family of Ms Moser used the word “kill” in describing what happened. It was said by a victim to Mr Powell “You have not only killed Jessica, you have absolutely destroyed our family.” In that sense we accept that the headline accurately reflected words used in court. We do not consider the word to be inaccurate.
11. The purpose of headlines is to grab the reader’s attention, including through the use of strong or colourful language. There is no need for a headline to be balanced providing it reflects a significant element of the story and is not unfair.
12. It is accepted that there is an emotional context to the use of the word “Killer”. The use of the word could be seen as harsh given its alternative meanings. Indeed, the Waikato Times, in its response, said it could understand why the complainants disliked the word “Killer” in the headline and that it would take this on board in future reporting. However, it did not think the use of the word was inappropriate, and we agree.
13. We do not consider that the fairness threshold has been crossed. Although the characterisation of Mr Powell was harsh, it was within the range of accurate and fair descriptors that could be applied to a person who had been convicted of careless driving causing death. It is also relevant that the overall article describes the circumstances of the collision and sets out statements by the judge that are sympathetic to Mr Powell. As such, anyone who read article in full would have had been provided with a balanced perspective.
14. As to the second complaint by Mr Booth, we do not agree that the sub-headline referring to the driver’s “inattention” was misleading. Despite the complainant’s assertion that no offence was committed, Mr Powell entered a guilty plea to a charge of careless driving causing death, and we accept that in doing so, he admitted that he was careless. We do note that the judge, in his sentencing decision, clearly regarded any carelessness as being of a low order, as Mr Powell was not disqualified from driving.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld in relation to use of the word “Killer” in the headline under Principles (1) and (6). The complaint is also not upheld in relation to the sub-headline.
Dissent by Hon Raynor Asher, Alison Thom, Marie Shroff, Judi Jones, Hank Schouten
The reaction of the reader to the headline is the key. The minority believes that the use of the word “Killer” in the headline, while not inaccurate in a dictionary sense, was nevertheless unfair. The word “Killer” has multiple meanings, one of which is “murderer”, and the headline raises at least the possibility that someone who has been involved in a deliberate or reckless driving act has received a light sentence.
In our view the use of the word “Killer” will create an emotional reaction in a reader, who will likely assume it refers to an act where death should have been foreseen. The juxtaposition of someone who is a killer of a cyclist being allowed to continue driving has a pejorative ring and will attract particular attention. In the context of the headline the word would not be read in a neutral sense. It has a shock value and would induce a negative reaction about the driver for the wrong reason.
In our view, the casual reader, who may not go onto read the article in full, would more likely than not assume from the headline alone that this was a deliberate or reckless piece of driving that has caused tragedy and yet a very light penalty was imposed. We agree with the complainant that the use of the word in the headline was neither fair nor balanced and, in our view, there was a breach of Principle (1).
We would also uphold this aspect of the complaint under Principle (6) as the headline did not accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report. Contrary to the headline, the article itself did not show any intent or recklessness on the part of Mr Powell. Rather, it showed that the judge had, to an extent, been sympathetic to Mr Powell, and after he had “agonised” over his licence, chose not to disqualify him. To that extent, the headline does not accurately reflect the contents of the article. We therefore would have upheld the complaint on this basis as well.
Council members considering the complaint were: Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Katrina Bennett, Guy MacGibbon, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Reina Vaai, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson.
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.