Sam Lasham (Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa) against the NZ Herald and TVNZ
Case Number: 3838
Council Meeting: 2 February 2026
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication:
New Zealand Herald
TVNZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Unfair Coverage
Overview
The New Zealand Herald published an article on December 19, 2025, titled Wellington meth driver with young daughter in car first to fail new roadside test and TVNZ published a similar story on the same day headlined First positive roadside drug test: Dad driving on meth with child in car.
Sam Lasham, on behalf of Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa, complained the stories breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (4) Comment and Fact; and (6) Headlines and Captions.
The Article
The stories were based on a Police press release that reported a Wellington man had tested positive for methamphetamine while driving. This was the first positive result obtained using a new oral fluid screening test.
The articles reported what the new device screens were for and that when the test came back positive for meth, a required saliva sample and blood sample were requested for testing – which the driver refused. They also reported the man was due to appear in the Hutt Valley District Court the following month.
The Complaint
Mr Lasham complained the articles contained misleading and inaccurate content.
“The headline states as fact that the driver was “driving on meth” despite the fact the tests used are unable to prove unequivocally that methamphetamine was present, are unable to prove that a driver is impaired, or under the influence of drugs, and the tests used have a significant false positive rate.”
He said the tests were not able to differentiate between methamphetamine and MDMA, both of which were methylated amphetamines. As such the headline asserted a specific drug use that the testing regime was not capable of identifying. Presenting the result as definitive evidence of methamphetamine use was factually incorrect and misleading.
He added the oral roadside test was not impairment based and could not determine whether a driver was affected at the time of driving. They did not measure impairment and did not establish that the driver was unsafe to drive at the time.
The drugs were detectable in oral fluid for up to 48 hours, but the effects of MDMA and methamphetamine were substantially shorter – 4-5 hours for MDMA and 4-12 hours for methamphetamine. The article risked leading readers to incorrectly assume a positive roadside test equated impaired driving.
The articles also failed to contextualise known limitations and error rates of roadside oral screening – there was a 28 percent chance that that someone who tested positive did not have the drug in their system.
There was a meaningful risk of false positives, particularly where only an initial screening test was reported.
“The article does not clarify whether confirmatory testing was undertaken, yet presents the allegation as settled fact. This omission completely undermines the accuracy of the reporting.”
“Further, the language used in the headline and article contributes to the stigmatisation of people who use drugs by presenting unproven allegations as established fact.”
He also said the NZ Herald failed to critically assess the information provided by reproducing a press release without additional scrutiny.
The Response
The NZ Herald responded that the information in their article came from a Police press release and suggested Mr Lasham should raise his concerns with them.
As for the points raised it was not intended to be a comprehensive piece about roadside testing. However, similar concerns about the tests had been reported in earlier stories and balance had therefore been provided over time.
TVNZ said its headline and article accurately reported that a man stands accused of driving on methamphetamine and is set to appear in court on those charges. It would follow the case when it came before the court, which was the appropriate forum for hearing any concerns about the reliability of evidence.
It did not consider the inability to distinguish methamphetamine from MDMA was critical as both drugs were prohibited and capable of impairing drivers. It also did not consider information about test error rates was crucial to reader understanding.
TVNZ added that issues about the new testing regime had been reported in previous articles. It added that readers understood testing methods were not perfect, errors could occur and prosecutions could fail for those reasons.
There was a significant public interest in reporting this irrespective of the robustness of the regime. TVNZ also stood by the headline which it said accurately portrayed the situation. It did not agree that the article stigmatised drug users.
The Discussion
The Media Council considered the stories fairly reported a police statement about the first time they detected methamphetamine in a roadside test. As such it was newsworthy and a matter of public interest and the headlines captured a key element of the stories.
The Council believed it was fair to use the word meth given that it is an abbreviation of methamphetamine and the similarly named chemical name of MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine). Besides, both drugs are prohibited as they can impair driving.
Although the reporting was limited, that is often the case where criminal offences are first reported, inevitably more detail will be presented when a case goes to court and that is an appropriate forum for the police to present all their evidence and for the defendant to test and challenge the validity of the charges laid. Given the public interest, the case will no doubt receive further coverage then.
There was a good deal of detail put into the complaint. It was said that more should have been said to contextualise the complaint. The Media Council cannot assess this aspect of the complaint. It is unable to conclude with certainty that there were any errors in the reporting.
These were brief stories based on a statement by the Director of Road Policing and the media were entitled to report his statement. The articles were not demonstrably inaccurate or unfair. The Council noted balance had been provided in earlier NZ Herald and TVNZ stories which raised issues with the testing regime.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.