Joanne Davis vs. Vista

Joanne Davis vs. Vista 

 

Ruling by the Press Ombud

18 July 2017

 

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Joanne Davis and those of Christo van Staden, assistant editor of the Vista newspaper (distributed in parts of the Free State).

 

Davis is complaining about a front-page story in Vista of 22 June 2017, headlined Kind erg mishandel – skopboks-afrigter rand kinders na bewering al ? geruime tyd aan.

 

Complaint

 

Davis complains that the newspaper published:

• her and her fiancé’s names before they were found guilty in a court of law (even though the police did not reveal their names in a media release); and

• a picture of the child without Davis’s consent.

 

She adds that the reportage had devastating effects on her and her fiancé, including various death threats and her resignation from her job.

 

She is also unhappy about the fact that the story was posted on the newspaper’s Facebook page.

 

 

The text

 

The article, written by Madli Grobbelaar, was about the arrest of Davis and her fiancé, Mr Gerrie Martin (49), on charges of child abuse and failure to report it.

 

The child reportedly had bleeding on his brain, his left arm was heavily swollen and the blood-flow to his left hand was cut off. The court had placed the boy in Martin’s and Davis’s care a few days before the incident(s) which led to his injuries.

 

Martin reportedly had other charges of assault, as well as a protection order, against him. Davis was released on a warning, while Martin – who had already appeared in court – remained in custody.

 

The article was accompanied by a picture of Martin, as well as of the boy (whose face was blocked off partly).

 

Vista responds

 

Van Staden replies that:

• according to the Code of Ethics and Conduct, as well as the Criminal Procedures Act, No. 51 of 1977, the names and pictures of suspects may be used “when they have appeared in court and all the information that come out in court and are part of the court proceedings, can be published”;

• only in cases of a sexual nature, the names of the accused may be published only after they have pleaded – what may not be revealed, is the identity of a child;

• the story did not identify the child – the picture of him was published to give an indication of the boy’s injuries, and more than half of his face was blocked out to protect his identity;

• the journalist verified all the information with the prosecutor;

• child abuse is a huge problem in that particular area;

• the newspaper does not have control over the public’s reaction – all it has to do, is to get its facts accurate and report fairly; and

• the newspaper posted a PDF of its front page on Facebook, as it usually does.

 

He adds that the newspaper will publish the outcome of the court case.

 

Analysis

 

Most of Van Staden’s arguments do not need any debate – it is normal journalistic practice, internationally, to mention the name of a person who has appeared in court (with the exception of minors and cases of a sexual nature); and indeed the newspaper cannot be blamed for the devastating effects on Davis and her fiancé (as long as its facts are accurate and fairly presented).

 

The only real issue is the publication of the picture of the child without consent.

 

Section 8.1 of the Code is relevant. It states:

 

The Bill of Rights (Section 28.2) in the South African Constitution states: “A child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.” The media, applying the spirit of this section, shall therefore: (8.1.) exercise exceptional care and consideration when reporting about children. If there is any chance that coverage might cause harm of any kind to a child, he or she shall not be interviewed, photographed or identified without the consent of a legal guardian or of a similarly responsible adult and the child (taking into consideration the evolving capacity of the child), and a public interest is evident.

 

Considering the “best interests” of the child, the first question is whether any harm was done to him by the publication of the picture.

 

In this case, what harm could be at stake? Certainly not coming from his peers, as they were too young.

 

Taking into account the child’s circumstances, as well as his age, maybe I should rather turn this question around and ask: What harm could it do to him by not publishing his picture? A picture tells a thousand words – and this one, even though half of the child’s face was obscured, certainly must have shocked the reading public into understanding the harsh reality of what had happened to this unfortunate toddler.

 

But that is not all. One central issue, not explicitly argued by Vista, is public interest. I need to keep in mind that the person arrested for causing the injuries to the child was a kickboxing trainer (and bound to have children in his classes). The arrest does not make him guilty of course – only the court can decide that – but it does create reasonable doubt as to the wisdom of sending one’s child to him for lessons (at least while waiting for the outcome of the court case).

 

Let me be blunt: If my child was taking kickboxing lessons from a man who had been arrested on suspicion of assaulting a child, I would certainly want to know about it. The publication of the child’s picture definitely took the interests of other children, as well as their parents, into account.

 

The question of whether the child could have been identified is, in any case, in doubt. Although half his face was blocked out (a fact for which I am grateful), an argument could be made that it was not enough.

 

However, if the boy was Martin’s and Davis’s own son, it would have been reasonable to accept that the boy might be identified by association. That was not the case, though, as the toddler was in their care for a mere five days.

 

In conclusion, Vista has done nothing wrong – on the contrary, it should be commended for taking its role as watchdog seriously, and doing so responsibly.

 

Post script: I notice that Davis spells her first name “Joanne”, while Vista has it as Jo-Anne”. I trust that the newspaper will get this spelling correct in future.

 

Finding

 

The complaint is dismissed.

 

Appeal

 

The Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.

 

Johan Retief

Press Ombud