Stephen Marriott against the New Zealand Herald

The New Zealand Herald published an article on March 30, 2025, headlined Auckland Firefighter Stephen Marriott sentenced for assaulting, strangling teacher.

The story was based on an interview with Katherine Turner, Mr Marriott’s former partner, after he was convicted on one of four strangulation charges, one of three charges of male assaults female and sentenced to six months community detention, 100 hours of community work and nine months of supervision.

The story reported Ms Turner’s account of how the relationship developed over the 18 months they were together. She said he started calling her names and putting her down before that developed into “physical stuff” and that he would snap and go from zero to a hundred.

Ms Turner said she was speaking publicly in order to raise understanding of domestic violence, which she said came in many guises - and crept up on her. She said she feared for her life, suffered from PTSD and stopped teaching as children’s screams triggered her. She also believed Mr Marriott was a risk to other women and said she was glad she stood up to him and called him out on the abuse.

The article further reported the Herald had obtained several texts from Mr Marriott to Ms Turner in which he tried to explain his violence and begged for her to return. It also included comment by Judge Brooke Gibson that she didn’t believe Marriott had shown remorse and said, “You are more of a risk than you believe you are.”

Mr Marriott complained the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance (3) Children and Young People (4) Comment and Fact (6) Headlines and Captions (7) Discrimination and Diversity, and (12) Corrections.

“The article is extremely one-sided, unbalanced, and biased. While I did decline to comment, I believe it is unethical to publish a story presenting only one perspective. What was published was not solely factual. My partner and I broke up, and through her actions, she has demonstrated vengeful and vindictive behaviour. One would expect an intuitive journalist to read between the lines, yet instead, they chose to publish any comment my ex made—regardless of its truth.

I offered to meet with the Herald and provide notes of evidence to set the record straight. The issue is that the journalist did not attend a single day of the trial and made no effort to investigate.

She was present only at sentencing, which she both misquoted and reported unfairly. For example, the judge clearly stated, “she did not pass out,” yet the article originally read “until she passed out.” This was only corrected after I lodged a complaint.

In their reply, the Herald admitted to making factual errors. It’s obvious that the reporting was unbalanced. If a journalist doesn’t attend the trial and only reports one side of the story, a reputable media outlet should at least stick to verifiable facts—not hearsay and conjecture, especially when personal motives and vindictive intentions are involved after a breakup.

Instead of simply correcting the various inaccuracies in the article, I am requesting that it be removed entirely, along with a written apology from the author for what I consider a deeply flawed and irresponsible piece of journalism. This national article about me, is not in the best interests of my young daughter, as she grows older.”

The Herald said it stood by its story although it corrected a caption. It originally said that Katherine Turner claimed Stephen Marriott strangled her so hard she passed out. This was corrected to read “Katherine Turner claimed Stephen Marriott strangled her. She could not remember if she passed out or not”.    

It also updated the story to record that Mr Marriott disputed using the words “if you want this lifestyle you need to behave better and do what I say” and the claim he monitored Ms Turner’s phone calls, banned her ex-husband from visiting and demanded she remove a tattoo that had her child’s surname on it.  

The NZ Herald also responded to a list of other points raised by Mr Marriott. These arguments are summarised here:

1.To the comment that Ms Turner was not and had never been a teacher, the NZ Herald said she was a qualified and registered teacher.
2. To the comment that she never mentioned during the eight-day trial that she thought she would die, the NZ Herald said Ms Turner disclosed this in an interview.
3. Responding to his comment - that the remark he was a risk to other woman - was pure speculation, and that she had been vindictive, the NZ Herald said: “The statement is couched as Katherine’s belief. I also note that at your sentencing, Judge Brooke Gibson said: “You are more of a risk than you believe you are.” We have confirmed this quote was accurate with Crown prosecutors.
4. The NZ Herald said the comment in the article that “he never left" was not deliberately misleading.  It was an appropriate phrase given how they became a couple, moved in together, and had a baby. 
5. Responding to his denial that he had anger problems, the NZ Herald said Ms Turner’s claim was borne out by his conviction for assaulting and strangling her.
6. Responding to the claim that he did not “high-five” a supporter after the case concluded, the NZ Herald said its reporter said she saw it.
7.To the claim that the article misquoted comments made by the judge during sentencing, the NZ Herald said the quote was drawn from court notes and had been confirmed as accurate by the Crown prosecutor.
8.To his comment that Ms Turner had never expressed fearing for her life before the article, the NZ Herald said that given the court found she was strangled and assaulted, she was entitled to claim she feared for her life.
9.To his complaint that the journalist did not investigate both side of the story and omitted key facts presented at trial and sentencing, the NZ Herald responded that the article drew from court documents, an interview with Katherine Turner and the sentencing hearing.  The sentencing judge did not refer to the matters raised by Mr Marriott and, therefore, did not see them as relevant to the actions for which he was convicted.
10.To his claim that this was a private domestic matter with little relevance to the public, the NZ Herald responded there was public interest in reporting matters before our courts.
11.To his claim that the article was defamatory and contained discriminatory content with its reference to a “boys club”, the NZ Herald said Ms Turner was found by the court to be the victim of domestic violence.  “If she is aggrieved that certain people didn’t check to see if she was okay after that violence, she is entitled to express that.”

Before discussing this complaint, the Media Council needs to make it clear that it is not a forum for relitigating court cases. Weighing up evidence presented in Court is a matter for judges and juries. The Council’s sole purpose is to consider matters of journalistic ethics and, in this case, determine whether the NZ Herald’s article breached any of its principles.

The Media Council notes the article was not a report of the trial or of evidence given during the trial. Important as it was to the article, the sentencing and the judge’s comments only made up a small part of the story which was developed well beyond that to report on Ms Turner’s experience as a victim of domestic violence. She was entitled to talk about their relationship, how it began, how it developed and ended violently and how she feared for her life and the risk to other women.  The NZ Herald considered it was in the public interest to publish this article.

Mr Marriott’s complaint contained information that showed he had another perspective of the relationship but declined the opportunity to speak to the NZ Herald before the story was published.  Given that he was given the opportunity to give his side of the story but refused to do so, we cannot accept Mr Marriott’s complaint that the NZ Herald should not have published her story, supported as it was by his convictions and the sentencing notes, (although as stated above the victim’s remarks went further than the findings of the Court). Later, after Mr Marriott complained, the NZ Herald corrected one point and added a sentence reporting that he disputed some of the comments made by Ms Turner. This was done appropriately and quickly.

The Council does not believe a case has been made to show a breach of any of the principles cited in this complaint.

Decision: No grounds to proceed.