Editorial – Naming Names

Filed in Opinions, Recent News by January 18, 2016
Elizabeth Flaherty, Managing Director, Wavelength Group. Photographer: Katrina Partridge.

Elizabeth Flaherty, Managing Director, Wavelength Group. Photographer: Katrina Partridge.

This week Scone.com.au will begin court reporting, seemingly a lost art in regional Australia, but one we think is important.

It means we will name names, publish photographs and cite previous convictions.

Before a matter is heard in court the police are not allowed to release names or reference any prior convictions, as it could prejudice the case.

So when we provide police updates they only reference general descriptions such as “a 24 year old male from Scone”.

However, once a matter has been to court it is on the public record and it is considered in the public interest that names and further details are made available.

It means if you assault women, drive drunk on our roads, punch someone at the pub or break into someone’s home, your community will know it was you.

There is a place for privacy, but in small country towns the line between what may be considered private and what is in the public domain can change quickly.

When the privacy legislation was first introduced I was working in government as a media manager for large hospitals.

My colleagues and I spent half a day with the Commissioner who developed the legislation and it was enlightening.

Since then I’ve often heard individuals and organisations present skewed interpretations of the privacy act to argue that privacy is paramount and overrides everything.

It doesn’t.

The individual’s right to privacy is still weighed against the public’s right to know and also if it is already considered to be in the public domain.

The media can report on what is in the public domain.

A simple litmus test for what is in the public domain used to be if you could walk down the street and find someone who could tell you the details, but now with social media the litmus test is much clearer and quicker.

An example the Commissioner used when we were talking about releasing patient information was if a player was injured at a football game attended by most of the town, it would be considered in the public domain and arguably in the public interest to release patient details.

But therein is the balancing act of making sure the immediate next-of-kin know of any changes in condition, before the rest of the world.

While working in Sydney, there was a case where the police media actually released information that a baby had died to the media, before the father had the opportunity to tell the mother and the police representative argued it was in the public domain.

Fortunately in that particular situation we asked the media to withhold the information until the mother was informed and they did.

But in an era where every mobile phone can photograph and post content instantaneously, trying to ensure immediate next-of-kin are advised before information is published and in the public domain is much more difficult.

This is especially true in small country towns where immediate next of kin may recognise a vehicle in a photo, a person by a general description or read a post on social media, before police can inform them.

In cases of accidents and trauma, scone.com.au will always take the lead from police as to when names can be responsibly reported.

We will always respect the right of immediate family to hear about a loved one’s condition, before the rest of the world.

But for people who may cause harm to others in the community, when the law believes it is in the public interest to put their names on the public record, we will do our job as the media and report them.

SignatureElizabethFlahertyR

 

 

 

Elizabeth Flaherty
Editor of scone.com.au

Read: Previous Court Reports.

Copyright 2024 © Wavelength Group Pty Ltd.    
Site map protected by patent. All rights reserved. Sitemap Terms and Conditions | Google Recaptcha Privacy | Terms