*Y against Stuff
Case Number: 3889
Council Meeting: 31 August 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Children and Young People
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Children and Young People
Privacy
Overview
1. *Y complains about an article published by Stuff in May 2026 reporting on a case before the courts. The complaint falls to be decided under Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy Fairness and Balance, Principle (2) Privacy, Principle (3) Children and Young People and Principle (12) Corrections. The complaint is upheld in relation to the reporting of details regarding children. This decision is anonymised and does not include the usual detail because of the involvement of children and the existence of a suppression order.
The Article
2. The article reported on a case before the courts, where a person had been charged. It provided some background on the person charged. Relevantly, it included a link to an earlier story about a commercial operation involving that person, which included images and material relating to that person’s children.
The Complaint
3. *Y complains that the article was unbalanced as it omits critical context and relevant perspectives. As a result, it was biased towards, and had a direct effect on, the subject of the article.
4. *Y also states that it was inappropriate to include a direct link to the earlier article and material relating to children and that this has had a negative impact on them.
5. *Y further complains that although several alterations were made to the article after publication, there was no transparency regarding what changes were made or why.
The Response
6. In its response Stuff notes that the report was a factual news account of the matter drawn from court proceedings. The report was not an appropriate venue to consider broader issues extraneous to those proceedings.
7. The article itself contained no named reference to, photographs of, or identifying details relating to the children. The link included in the article led to a previously published report about a business involving the charged person and was included as part of the standard journalistic practice of linking to background stories for further context.
8. When informed that the historical article contained images of children Stuff proactively removed the link as a precaution to ensure their best interests were protected. However, Stuff does not accept that linking to historic, publicly available information constitutes a breach of privacy or intent to cause harm.
9. Stuff also notes that a formal correction notice is only required when a significant factual error in the text is amended. Removing the hyperlink did not alter any of the substance of the story and a correction note was neither required nor appropriate. It maintains its reporting was factual and in the public interest.
The Discussion
10. The Media Council does not consider that the reporting in this article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. The article contains factual details relating to the court proceedings, coupled with some background context on the subject of the article and their business interests. We agree with Stuff that it was unnecessary to traverse anything beyond that narrow issue and limited context.
11. Media Council Principle (3) Children and Young People states that:
In cases involving children and young people publishers must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests of the child or young person.
12. Also relevant is Principle (2) Privacy, which among other things notes that:
Publishers should exercise particular care and discretion before identifying relatives of persons convicted or accused of crime where the reference to them is not relevant to the matter reported.
13. The Council does not think it is relevant that the article complained of had no named references to, photographs of, or identifying details about the named children. The linked article contained more than one photograph of the children and other identifying particulars. The purpose of providing a link was for readers to follow it to gain further context and insights into the matter being reported on. Those readers who did follow the link would also have seen pictures and identifying details of children.
14. As the Council has observed before, simply because a reference to children happens to be in the public domain does not mean that can be repeated in all circumstances. It is necessary for publishers to make an assessment in each instance where reference to children is made as to whether publication will appropriately override their interests or not.
15. In this case, the Media Council consider that there was no public interest in revealing the names and other particulars relating to the children. Reference to them was also irrelevant to the matter being reported on. The Council accept that it had the potential to adversely affect them, and we agree with the complainant that the link to the earlier story should not have been included in the article.
16. The Council commend Stuff for its coverage of a sensitive issue, but we consider that this sort of reporting must be done in a cautious way. The Council acknowledge that Stuff did remove the link as a precaution to ensure the children’s best interests were protected. However, we consider that the link ought not to have been included in the first place and that linking to the photos of identifiable children, who could suffer as a consequence, was a serious breach. The breach was so significant that it could not be assuaged by the commendably swift removal of the link by Stuff. That said, we do not think that the change to the article was so substantive that a note of the change, or the reason for it, should have been made on it. Indeed, drawing attention to the change might have had the perverse effect of highlighting the information that had been removed.
Decision: The complaint is upheld in relation to Principle (3) Children and Young People and Principle (2) Privacy. It is not upheld on Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance or Principle (12) Corrections.
*name withheld to protect the privacy of the children
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoai, Rachael Heslop
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.