In the matter of
RAPPORT APPLICANT
AND
LANDMAN WILLEM RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 3293/05/2017
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] On 7 May 2017 Rapport (“applicant”) published an article with the heading “Karel Schoeman: Helper dalk vervolg”. The article was about the death of one Karel Schoeman (“the deceased”); of particular interest was the manner in which he died. The implication was that he possibly caused his own death. Prof Willem Landman (“the respondent”) was close to the deceased. Following some reports from other newspapers, he was approached for an interview by the applicant about the circumstances of the deceased’s death. The respondent’s complaint to the Ombud relate to this interview and the consequent article. The following is a summary of the respondent’s complaints (the Ombud has in any case also accuratley summarized them in his Ruling):
1.1 Applicant broke its promise to let him have insight into what was to be published for, if necessary, amendment.
Applicant’s response: There was no obligation to submit the article to the respondent for approval prior to publication; there was no such an arrangement. Doing so was never a condition for the interview. If the respondent understood it that way, then there was a misunderstanding.
1.2 Applicant quoted senior advocate’s words and juxtapositioned them with his, in a manner that creates some sensation and casts him as having helped the deceased in his suicide (implying criminal liability on his part).
Applicant’s response: Respondent is not depicted as a “helper” towards the death. In this respect, applicant also sought to raise the point that the deceased was held to have died of natural causes anyway. As the respondent was to correctly argue, that would not necessarily retrospectively vindicate the applicant.
1.3 The article failed to distinguish between lawful euthenesia on the one hand, and possible unlawful assistance to suicide.
Applicant’s response: This interpretation is disputed. There is no suggestion that the deceased contemplated an illegal process (of ending his life).
1.4 Quotations attributed to him depicted him as confused and ignorant.
Applicant’s response: There is no suggestion of confusion or inadequate knowledge on the respondent’s part. What is articulated is his views on the legal position (common law and the Constitution).
1.5 What was quoted gave rise to a perception that in his advice, he took no heed of the law or at least not respected it; he only used his own personal interpretation of the Constitution as a point of reference or guide.
Applicant’s response: This is likewie being denied
Regarding the remedy, the respondent left it by and large to the Ombud, but certainly wanted his objections to be conveyed to the respondent.
[2] The Ombud, after considering the matter, dismissed some of the complaints. He did however find that the applicant breached articles 1.1, 1.2, 1.8 and 3.3 of the Press Code, and imposed a sanction; hence this application.
[3] For the application to succeed, the applicant must show reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel.
[4] In his Ruling, the Ombud analysed the parties’ submissions in unusually great detail, and very thoroughly so.
[5] The respondent’s main complaint is that the remarks by senior advocate were placed in relation to what he had said in such a way that an impression was created that he could be in danger of being prosecuted for helping the deceased in his death. The Ombud sums it up as follows:
“Landman kla dat die naasmekaarstelling van die menings van ‘n senior advokaat met onakkurate en misleidende aanhalings wat in Landman se mond gelê is, die indruk geskep het dat hy die ‘helper’ was wat krimineel vervolg kan word”.
The applicant’s argument is that this would not be the case as what respondent said has nothing to do with his support to the deceased; I don’t agree. I do not have to go into every argument raised by the applicant. I agree with the Ombud that the article is teeming with (“wemel van”) references to the respondent. These references point to interaction between the respondent and the deceased, and the help the former would render to the latter in the past. Respondent is described as a friend of the deceased and also as someone who is not unsympathetic to the idea of people, under certain circumstances, being allowed to decide how they wish to die. Furthermore, there is constant reference to the deceased intimating that he would need assistance from someone, albeit without causing any prejudice to such a person.
I am satisfied with the manner in which the Ombud dealt with the matter and the conclusions he arrived at; as also with regard to the sanction.
[6] For the reasons given by the Ombud and the observations I make above, I am of the view that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 19th day of July 2017
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel