*X against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3831
Council Meeting: 2 February 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Discrimination and Diversity
Confidentiality
Subterfuge
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Confidentiality
Discrimination
Deception
Privacy
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. On December 10, 2025, Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published an article headlined Double-bunk cell death: Jonathan Trubuhovich's family want Corrections to be held accountable.
2. *X complained under Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (2) Privacy; (7) Discrimination and Diversity; (8) Confidentiality; and (9) Subterfuge.
3. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
4. The subject of the complaint is an article about the death in custody of 69-year-old Jonathan Peter Trubuhovich. He died in hospital 10 days after an alleged assault by a cellmate while he was remanded at Mt Eden prison.
5. Mr Trubuhovich was awaiting sentencing on charges of burglary by night, shoplifting and disorderly behaviour relating to a series of incidents between May 1 and May 6, 2025.
6. The article leads with Mr Trubuhovich's family calling for the Department of Corrections to be held accountable for failures leading up to his death.
7. His death is the subject of the third homicide investigation involving inmates in shared cells at the prison in just over a year.
8. Mr Trubuhovich had been remanded in custody since May 2025 and was due to be sentenced in December, when his family expected he would likely be released.
9. Police are investigating the death as a homicide. Corrections have launched a review and the suitability of placing the victim in a shared cell would be part of the review, Corrections said.
10. The article states that Mr Trubuhovich had a criminal history including nearly 200 convictions, mainly for shoplifting, burglary and other theft as well as convictions for assault, citing documents provided to RNZ.
11. Paragraphs in the article as first published - concerning Mr Trubuhovich’s alleged criminal past, drug use and mental health - were removed within a day of publication, after a complaint from members of Mr Trubuhovich’s family.
The Complaint
12. The complainant, *X, says the article contained a very detailed description of her relative’s criminal history, which the family had not consented to have made public.
13. She says incorrect information and undue emphasis on her relative’s past breaches Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and (2) Privacy.
14. It was published less than 24 hours after his death, not even giving the family time to grieve, *X says.
15. The details about Mr Trubuhovich’s past came from a private psychological/drug assessment report done by a counsellor in prison, *X says. Much of it is misinformation and untrue, as Mr Trubuhovich’s mental state had declined very quickly over the last few years and a lot of the time he lied and did not make much sense, *X says.
16. RNZ may have breached Media Council principles (9) Subterfuge and (8) Confidentiality in obtaining the assessment, *X says.
17. Including harrowing details of Mr Trubuhovich’s criminal history is unbalanced - making his convictions the highlight of the article rather than the tragedy of his death, which is mostly caused by negligence of duty of care from Corrections to prevent such events from happening, *X says.
18. RNZ updated the article, removing material about Mr Trubuhovich’s past, however the article was up for about 24 hours before the complaint - during which time damage was already being done to his reputation, *X says.
19. *X was incorrectly addressed as *Y in an email from RNZ, highlighting a lack of accuracy on RNZ’s part, she says.
20. *X wants the article taken down completely so the family can grieve Mr Trubuhovich’s death in peace, without constant fear of public scrutiny.
The Response
21. This article covering Mr Trubuhovich’s tragic death in prison is part of a series on the issue of double-bunking. There are three recent homicide investigations relating to deaths in shared cells. It is clearly a matter of public interest, and this article exists in that context, RNZ says.
22. The information on Mr Trubuhovich’s criminal history at issue in the complaint was contained in a sentencing report that was to be tendered in court as part of Mr Trubuhovich’s sentencing hearing, RNZ says. It was compiled by a medical professional and was supplied to RNZ by Mr Trubuhovich’s lawyer.
23. RNZ accepted the document in good faith, and at no point did any reporter, producer or broadcaster misrepresent their roles.
24. The information from Mr Trubuhovich’s sentencing report did not seek to vilify Mr Trubuhovich but contributes to the audience’s understanding of the case, RNZ says. It helps the audience to make an informed judgment about the nature of Mr Trubuhovich’s offending and whether incarceration in Mt Eden prison, whilst on remand and given his history of addiction and mental health issues, was appropriate.
25. Following a complaint from family members, a number of paragraphs were removed from the story out of sympathy for their circumstances. The paragraphs, related to Mr Trubuhovich’s history of addiction and connections with other criminals, had been accurately reported from the sentencing report. While the family has disputed some of the information in the report, it was to be placed before a judge, who would use it when deciding on the appropriate sentence.
26. RNZ made the news judgment that removing the paragraphs would not misrepresent Mr Trubuhovich's life, and the article could stand without them. They were not removed for accuracy.
27. The article does not breach Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, RNZ says. It accurately reports the contents of court documents and comments from Mr Trubuhovich’s family and lawyer. It is balanced and fair in that the majority of the article focuses on the concerns of the family and the lawyer, with additional comment from the acting general manager of the Mt Eden Correctional Facility.
28. The article does not contravene Principle (2) Privacy, RNZ says, as there is significant public interest in Mr Trubuhovich’s death as one of a series of incidents at Mt Eden Prison. RNZ published information it provided to help its audience understand the case and the issues involved. Media organisations have an exemption from the Privacy Act 2020 for news-gathering purposes, RNZ says.
29. At no stage did RNZ misrepresent its intentions to the family or Mr Trubuhovich’s lawyer and is therefore not in breach of Principle (9) Subterfuge. Mr Trubuhovich’s lawyer freely agreed to be interviewed on Checkpoint and provided the sentencing document without caveats, RNZ says.
30. RNZ does not believe Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity is relevant.
The Discussion
31. The article is clearly angled on the family’s call for accountability from Corrections over the death of Mr Trubuhovich in prison, placing it in the context of a series of deaths in similar circumstances - a topic with a clear public interest.
32. Mr Trubuhovich’s background is an unavoidable element of the story - it provides some explanation for how he came to be incarcerated while awaiting sentence and, particularly as it relates to his mental health, pertains to the issue of his suitability for double-bunking.
33. At the heart of *X’s complaint is the veracity of the information about Mr Trubuhovich’s past and whether the article places undue emphasis on his history, rather than the circumstances that led to his death in prison.
34. Dealing first with Principles (8) Confidentiality and (9) Subterfuge: the Media Council can find no breach here. The article is based on court documents provided to RNZ by Mr Trubuhovich’s lawyer, and interviews freely given.
35. We find no breach of Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity. There is no undue emphasis on Mr Trubuhovich’s race, gender, or sexual orientation. Where his mental health is traversed, it is relevant to his suitability for incarceration in a shared cell.
36. Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and (2) Privacy, bear deeper discussion.
37. While some of Mr Trubuhovich’s family may dispute the veracity of information contained in the sentencing report, it is a document that was to be considered by the judge when deciding an appropriate sentence for Mr Trubuhovich. It was supplied to RNZ legitimately, and RNZ was entitled to report its contents, to the extent that it provided meaningful context to the story.
38. Fairness and balance are more nuanced and subjective. Some background to explain why Mr Trubuhovich was in the cell where he was assaulted and illustrate why his incarceration in those circumstances may have posed an identifiable risk, was necessary. The question is how much is fair.
39. The amendment RNZ made to the article showed it was possible to tell the story with adequate context, while not dwelling on Mr Trubuhovich’s history. It might not have been wise to include all the detail of the original article, and the Council welcomes the editing out of three of the original paragraphs relating to the victim’s past.
40. *X maintains the sentencing report RNZ used for background information on Mr Trubuhovich was not reliable, but it was supplied by the family’s lawyer, and it was reasonable for RNZ to rely on it as official information.
41. To Principle (2) Privacy: while the Media Council is sympathetic to the family in a time of grief, in this case we believe the public interest in issues around the justice system warrants the reporting of this case. We do however acknowledge the family’s distress over the publication of sensitive information about their deceased family member, so soon after his traumatic death.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld.
*Name withheld to protect the complainant.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau, Bernadette Courtney
Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.