*X against The Press

The Press published an article on April 28, 2026, titled Neighbour says child hospitalised with serious unexplained injuries cried daily for months.

The story was about a Christchurch toddler who was hospitalised with serious unexplained injuries.  Neighbours revealed that they had heard the young child crying every day for months. It reported Police were investigating and making inquiries to establish how the child came to be injured, including speaking with family members.

*X, who is a neighbour, complained that The Press was careless not to blur her number plate or crop her car out of a photo which showed police cars down a shared driveway. She was concerned that the photo would indicate she had spoken to a reporter and was concerned for the safety of her children.

The Press declined her request to take the photo down.

The editor wrote: “I do not accept our headline is irresponsible or rage baiting, and do not understand why you would describe it in that way. There are obviously many neighbours of the property in question and no reason to assume you are the neighbour who has spoken to our reporter. The photo is focusing on the police and their activities at the property where the incident has allegedly occurred".

“We will not be removing the photo, nor editing it. If you remain concerned about your safety, you should contact the police.”

*X responded: “I had hoped you'd have more empathy for the situation however I also understand that sometimes being in particular industries can numb us to people's personal realities and concerns. The entire situation is awful and has been a great stress to those of us who live directly on this shared driveway.”

She complained The Press breached Media Council Principles (2) Privacy (3) Children and Young People (8) Confidentiality and (11) Photographs and Graphics.

The Media Council understands *X’s concern when she saw the story and photo and her concern for the safety of her children.

The Press was within its rights to take and publish a photo of the scene as the story was a matter of public interest. It could have shown some consideration for her concern by simply blurring the number plate, which is common practice in the media nowadays. However it is difficult to trace a number plate, and the photo was unlikely to tell the occupants of the property where the child lived or anything that they did not already know. We do not consider that that this was an undue interference with privacy, as there was an understandable public interest in the incident and the photo of the car and number plate was not a significant encroachment. The complainant lived there.

There was no evidence to show it breached any of the Principles cited in this complaint.

 
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed

*Name withheld to protect the privacy of the complainant.