Tennille Pederson against the New Zealand Herald and Newstalk ZB

The NZ Herald published an article on October 14, 2025, titled Young man accused of sexually violating female friend as teens hung out.

The story reported the first day of a court hearing in which a young man was charged with sexual violation and an alternative charge of sexual conduct with a young person.  The young man was 16 years old at the time and his accuser was a 15-year-old girl. They were in the same friend group, and he allegedly assaulted her at the young man’s house.

Tennille Pederson complained that the article caused immense distress to the complainant during the trial.

“I recognise the importance of open justice and the media’s role in reporting on court proceedings; however, this must be balanced against the responsibility to avoid causing unnecessary harm to complainants, particularly when young people are involved.”

“My purpose in bringing this complaint is to uphold responsible standards of court reporting and to ensure that young victims of sexual violence are protected from foreseeable and avoidable harm.”

Concerns were raised directly with the NZ Herald which denied any breach of Media Council Principles.

“I also contacted Newstalk ZB, which did not provide a formal response, but within approximately two hours of my complaint being sent, ZB removed all comments from its Facebook post of the article and disabled further commenting. This action — taken without public acknowledgement — demonstrates awareness that the discussion had become inappropriate.”

Ms Pederson said the article attracted victim blaming comment which cause severe emotional distress to the complainant in the case.

“This demonstrates the predictable consequences of emotive framing and a failure of editorial oversight by both the publisher and its affiliated broadcaster. This case also raises broader public-interest concerns. When media outlets report on sexual violence involving young people, provocative language and social-media promotion without safeguards can discourage victims from reporting.”

“The ethical duty of care owed to vulnerable complainants must extend beyond the courtroom and include how such stories are presented, framed, and circulated.”

Ms Pederson also complained the article presented the defendant’s circumstances and behaviour in a sympathetic, contextualised manner, while describing the complainant in more personal and distressing terms including details about the complainant’s history of self-harm that were not necessary for public understanding of the trial and that risked influencing perceptions of her reliability.

She also believed the article breached Media Council Principles (2) Privacy and (3) Children and Young People.

“The article disclosed details of the complainant’s mental-health history, including self-harm, which were neither essential to the story nor in the public interest. The inclusion of such information about a 15-year-old complainant in a sexual-violation case failed to meet the ethical test of minimising harm.”

“Even though the complainant was not named, she was identifiable within her community, and the decision to publish sensitive personal information risked causing further trauma. When Newstalk ZB promoted the article on social media without moderation, this harm was amplified by public victim-blaming and speculation — a foreseeable outcome that the publisher should have anticipated and prevented.”

In response the NZ Herald said it stood by its story as a straight report that accurately reflected the key points from the first day's proceedings.

As for social media posts “we do our very best to moderate comments, and have filters on them, but with the huge volume of posts and comments that come in we do occasionally miss things. I have asked my colleagues at ZB to look at their social media posts, remove anything concerning and close them to further comments.”

Information that the complainant had self-harmed was given in evidence in open court. It was a relevant part of the Crown's case as it pointed to the impact the alleged offending had on the unnamed teen.

“We can't pick and choose which bits of evidence to include from a trial; our story needs to be an accurate reflection of the evidence given.

The Media Council acknowledges Ms Pederson’s concerns for the wellbeing of the young person who was the victim in this case.

The Council also agrees with her comments on the importance of open justice and the media’s role in reporting court proceedings.

Clearly court proceedings can be stressful for complainants as they are required to relive their experience. But that comes with any criminal trial where evidence is likely to be challenged and where some people, including friends of families, will often be able to deduce who the victim is even when her name is suppressed.

But for this complaint to be upheld the Media Council needs to be persuaded that the publication of this story breached any of its Principles – the most important of which is a requirement for accuracy, fairness and balance.

Information before a Court can always contain a mix of evidence that is favourable or unfavourable to parties concerned and it is essential that news coverage fairly reflects that and is not partial.

The Council has not seen evidence that the reportage here was flawed or that it contained information that ought to have been suppressed, which is a matter for judges to decide.

Ms Pederson also cited Principles (2) Privacy and (3) Children and Young Persons. Principle (2) says the right to privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest. Principle (3) says editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests of the child or young person.

Clearly court proceedings involving serious crime are of exceptional public interest and the Media Council was not persuaded that the reporting in this case breached either Principle.

Another matter is the harm caused by unmoderated public comment when the story was posted on Facebook by Newstalk ZB with a link back to their website.

The Council notes that NZME’s “House Rules” which are applied by the NZ Herald and Newstalk ZB list the types of comments that it will not publish. Filters are used to help moderate comments and editors have always had the option to close off comments completely. In reporting on Court cases that may be appropriate and necessary, and in this case the Council notes that the complaint prompted Newstalk ZB to remove all the comments on its Facebook post of this article and disable commenting.

Decision: No grounds to proceed.