*X against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3805
Council Meeting: 1 December 2025
Decision: Upheld with Dissent
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Ruling Categories:
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Overview
1. On 12 September Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published on their website an article headed Who decided Tom Phillips was safe enough to leave alone with kids? A teen who was abducted similarly to the Phillips children when she was a six-year-old was named in the article. *X complains that in doing so the article breaches Principles (2) Privacy and (3) Children & Young People.
The Article
2. The article is about the abduction by Tom Phillips of his three children and examines what was known about the risks he posed before the incident. It raises questions about the quality of the police investigation and the actions of other agencies, including the Family Court. A number of child-protection experts highlighted significant issues and unanswered questions, creating an expectation that a formal inquiry would follow.
3. Particular unease was expressed about Phillips’ continued care of the children after he had previously taken them for 40 days, and despite a number of Reports of Concern made to Oranga Tamariki by both family members and police. The case was presented as part of a broader pattern in which children’s safety can be compromised during custody disputes.
4. A link was made to a similar case when Alan Langdon kidnapped his six-year-old daughter, taking her in a boat to Australia, breaching a Family Court order. The child was named.
The Complaint
5. In *X’s initial complaint to RNZ she asked that they stop naming the Langdon child in articles as she is now 15 years old and deserves some privacy. She said it was not necessary to use her name and that it is very re-traumatising for someone to see their name in such an article. Though their Christian names were not used in this article *X added that it would also be good to stop naming the Phillips children in the media.
6. In her formal complaint to the Media Council *X identified herself as the legal guardian of the Langdon child. She said that the child, now a teen, had suffered considerably and that seeing her name (in the article) would cause further trauma. She said she deserves privacy and not to have her classmates and community seeing her name in the news.
The Response
7. While acknowledging *X’s concerns, RNZ’s response to her initial communication was,
“it is, sadly, inevitable that she (the Langdon child) will continue to be linked with such cases, particularly where there are legitimate questions about the protection of children in custody disputes.”
8. RNZ said that once made aware through the formal complaint that *X was the child’s legal guardian, they amended the article to refer only to “Alan Langdon and his six-year-old daughter,” removing her distinctive Christian name and giving weight to the request being from a family member. They add that it is likely that would have removed her name earlier if they had known the complaint had come from a family member.
9. In defence of the original article, RNZ said that the details of the Langdon case—and the people involved—were already in the public domain. They noted that several publications had previously reported on the child and her family around the time of the kidnapping. RNZ also said that the Langdon case had direct relevance to the Phillips case, making it appropriate for inclusion in the story. However, they acknowledged that circumstances change over time and said they were pleased to update the article by removing the child’s name.
10. They say there is legitimacy in referencing the Langdon case when examining the abduction of the Phillips children. Both cases highlight the vulnerability of children within Family Court disputes, and each resulted in the serious outcome of abduction.
The Discussion
11. This complaint is focussed on the interests and well-being of a child following the publication of that child’s name, citing a breach of Principle (2) Privacy which says,
Everyone is normally entitled to privacy of person, space and personal information, and these rights should be respected by publications. Nevertheless, the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest….. Those suffering from trauma or grief call for special consideration.
12. It also cites a breach of Principle (3) Children and Young People which says,
In cases involving children and young people editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests of the child or young person.
13. The child’s name which is distinctive was widely referred to and publicised at the time of her abduction and in the period thereafter. However, this all occurred some nine years ago. The child is now a teenager.
14. There was good reason to publish the name when the child was abducted, as she was missing and had to be located. However, that is not the case now. Republishing her name nine years later draws the attention of a whole new group of people to an event that she understandably and in her legitimate interest will want to leave semi-forgotten. She will not want her classmates and friends having their attention drawn to a terrible incident in her past. They may have no knowledge of the earlier abductions. As her guardian points out this has caused her harm.
15. There was no need to mention her name to give the article sense and balance as was proven when RNZ did later remove her name yet still made the point about an emerging pattern of the risk to children in custody disputes. The child had had no say in the earlier publicity. Now nine years on it is the wrong approach to assume that the earlier publicity warranted her name being stated today. This is particularly so as the child’s first name, stated in the article, was highly distinctive. It is an unusual name in New Zealand, and anyone who read the article and knew the child would immediately know the child’s identity.
16. There was no exceptional public interest in being reminded of her name and certainly not to over-ride her interests. The article was about the Phillips abduction, and attention could have been drawn to the earlier abduction without stating the child’s distinctive first name. There are indications that publicising this young person’s name could cause re-traumatisation, emotional distress and harmful embarrassment. It should not have been done and breaches Principle (3) for “over-riding the interests of the child or young person.”
17. Without knowing that the teen’s legal guardian was the complainant, RNZ initially defended publishing the young person’s name, saying it was only a brief reference within a long article. Once they understood that the complainant was also her guardian, RNZ promptly removed the name “on the basis that it was a direct request from the family.”
18. However, the initial complaint to RNZ which was not acted on referred to the child and said that it was re-traumatising for someone to see their name published in this way. The Media Council considers that RNZ, should have acted on the initial complaint, referring as it did to the child’s welfare, regardless of who made it.
19. Particularly in situations where the child has already been through a highly traumatic event, every effort should have been made to prioritise their wellbeing and preserve their daily anonymity going forward. In particular publishing the name breached Principle 4. There was plainly no “high degree of public interest” in publication as is required by Principle 4. This should have been apparent to the publisher. Obviously, it was not in the child’s interests at all to have her name published.
Decision: This complaint is upheld on Principles (3) and (4).
*X is used to protect the identity of the child.
DISSENT BY ROSEMARY BARRACLOUGH, DEBORAH MORRIS, SCOTT INGLIS, GUY MACGIBBON
The minority would not have upheld the complaint. They felt that given the background to the case there were no red flags that naming the teen in one paragraph, well down in the story, would have been viewed as harmful or a breach of her privacy by the teen or her family.
The teen’s name had been publicised widely at the time of the kidnapping, and the family had consented to an interview and photoshoot that had resulted in the child’s name and photograph being in the public eye a year after she returned home. At this time, the family clearly did not view the publication of her name and photograph as harmful.
In the initial complaint there was no indication that the complainant had a personal connection to the teen. As soon as RNZ received the formal complaint, which explained that the complainant was the teen’s guardian and why she did not want her name used, they removed the name. The minority felt this was sufficient, and the change was made as promptly as possible. Ultimately, while the minority accepted that, in hindsight, the story could have run without the name being included, given the circumstances they did not see its use as a breach and believe it was a question of editorial discretion.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon,
Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau
Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote