Victor Cattermole against Stuff
Case Number: 3913
Council Meeting: 12 October 2026
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Headlines and Captions
Stuff published an article on September 5, 2026, titled ‘My bodyguard was found dead’: He claimed he was poisoned. Now he’s
bankrupt.
The story was about Victor Cattermole, a bankrupted businessman, who referred to the death of his bodyguard and his own poisoning two years earlier when he appeared in court facing a charge of blackmailing his company’s liquidators by threatening to poison their staff if they did not agree to settle a civil claim against him.
The article referred to Mr Cattermole’s business activities and his claim on a LinkedIn profile to be chair of the Crown Council of the Principality of Cogito, an organisation in which other listed council members included U2 singer Bono, comedian Russell Brand and God, although none of these figures have any known involvement with the virtual principality.
Mr Cattermole complained the article breach Media Council Principles (6) Headlines and Captions, and (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
“Linking a sensationalised comment regarding an unexplained death directly with a civil bankruptcy order in a single headline creates an unfair highly damaging nexus designed strictly for clickbait. A lay reader is left with the immediate impression that these events are causally or criminally linked, which exceeds neutral reporting.”
He also complained that before the article was amended, after a complaint made by him, the article omitted his website’s disclaimer stating that the listed personalities did not endorse, support of have any connection with the principality.
The article also selectively highlighted adverse judicial comments while omitting offset claims against the liquidators.
In response Stuff defended the headline, saying each element was drawn from matters reported in the article, Mr Cattermole’s statements in court and the subsequent bankruptcy judgment. The headline did not say these matters caused or were otherwise legally connected to the bankruptcy.
Stuff also said it did not accept the article misrepresented the Principality of Cogito website as claiming celebrity endorsement. It stated the celebrities were listed as board members but did not claim they endorsed Cogito. However, the article was updated, and a note was added at the top of the story to clarify this.
It added that before the story was published, the reporter had asked him to comment on his reported role at Cogito.
Stuff said the article also reported he was appealing the bankruptcy adjudication and related judgements and his statement that he would not provide substantive comment as these matters were the subject of ongoing litigation.
The Media Council has seen no evidence showing the article to be in breach of the Principles cited in this complaint. The headline is indeed sensational, but it accurately and fairly conveys key elements of an extraordinary story about Mr Cattermole’s business activities and the legal proceedings he has been involved in.
As for the other part of the complaint Stuff just said celebrities were listed as council members of Cognito. That does not mean it had their endorsement. If that was not clear enough, it was spelt out in greater detail, with the addition of an editor’s note at the top story, after Mr Cattermole initially contacted Stuff. The Media Council consider that fairly deals with his concern.
This was a detailed story, and no case has been made to show that it was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.
The story was about Victor Cattermole, a bankrupted businessman, who referred to the death of his bodyguard and his own poisoning two years earlier when he appeared in court facing a charge of blackmailing his company’s liquidators by threatening to poison their staff if they did not agree to settle a civil claim against him.
The article referred to Mr Cattermole’s business activities and his claim on a LinkedIn profile to be chair of the Crown Council of the Principality of Cogito, an organisation in which other listed council members included U2 singer Bono, comedian Russell Brand and God, although none of these figures have any known involvement with the virtual principality.
Mr Cattermole complained the article breach Media Council Principles (6) Headlines and Captions, and (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
“Linking a sensationalised comment regarding an unexplained death directly with a civil bankruptcy order in a single headline creates an unfair highly damaging nexus designed strictly for clickbait. A lay reader is left with the immediate impression that these events are causally or criminally linked, which exceeds neutral reporting.”
He also complained that before the article was amended, after a complaint made by him, the article omitted his website’s disclaimer stating that the listed personalities did not endorse, support of have any connection with the principality.
The article also selectively highlighted adverse judicial comments while omitting offset claims against the liquidators.
In response Stuff defended the headline, saying each element was drawn from matters reported in the article, Mr Cattermole’s statements in court and the subsequent bankruptcy judgment. The headline did not say these matters caused or were otherwise legally connected to the bankruptcy.
Stuff also said it did not accept the article misrepresented the Principality of Cogito website as claiming celebrity endorsement. It stated the celebrities were listed as board members but did not claim they endorsed Cogito. However, the article was updated, and a note was added at the top of the story to clarify this.
It added that before the story was published, the reporter had asked him to comment on his reported role at Cogito.
Stuff said the article also reported he was appealing the bankruptcy adjudication and related judgements and his statement that he would not provide substantive comment as these matters were the subject of ongoing litigation.
The Media Council has seen no evidence showing the article to be in breach of the Principles cited in this complaint. The headline is indeed sensational, but it accurately and fairly conveys key elements of an extraordinary story about Mr Cattermole’s business activities and the legal proceedings he has been involved in.
As for the other part of the complaint Stuff just said celebrities were listed as council members of Cognito. That does not mean it had their endorsement. If that was not clear enough, it was spelt out in greater detail, with the addition of an editor’s note at the top story, after Mr Cattermole initially contacted Stuff. The Media Council consider that fairly deals with his concern.
This was a detailed story, and no case has been made to show that it was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.