Appeal Decision: Dr. Nishana Inderjeeth

SUMMARY

The headline to the story read, Jamie was ‘starved’ – Post-mortem reveals shocking abuse (published on 10 – 14 December 2015).

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The story says a “disturbing photograph” of an apparently malnourished 3-year-old Chatsworth toddler and a post-mortem report detailing injuries described as “sickening and horrific” had shed new light on the alleged abuse the toddler suffered before her death. The child’s mother (31) and grandmother had been charged with Jamie’s murder. The latter was the foster parent in terms of a court order.

Dr Nishana Inderjeeth complained that the publication of the photograph was disrespectful and inappropriate. She asked whether the newspaper had:

• made any attempt to first validate the photo with a forensic expert before publishing it – the fact that the photo was uploaded from the internet by an unknown source after this child had died detracted from its credibility; and
• obtained the father of the child’s permission to publish the picture.

The Ombud dismissed the complaint, mainly because the:

• story attributed the identification of the child to sources who were reasonably credible – the newspaper did not have any reason to distrust them, or to investigate a possible “doctoring” of the picture;

• newspaper therefore did not necessarily have to get a “forensic expert” to verify information that was reasonably expected to be true;
• complainant herself did not provide any forensic evidence to the contrary; and
• the matter was in the public interest, and the newspaper had a duty to report that the child’s mother and grandmother had been charged with murder.

Inderjeeth then applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe dismissed the application, mainly because:

• he agreed with the Ombud’s finding;
• the picture was published in the period when violence against children and women was being highlighted; and
• he did not believe that the publication of the picture would have impacted on the proceedings of the court.

THE RULING ITSELF

DR NISHANA INDERJEEN                                                                APPLICANT

versus

POST                                                                                                      RESPONDENT

MATTER NO:

__________________________________________________________________

[1]     In its edition for the 10 – 14 December 2014, Post (“Respondent”), published the photo of a 3 year old child.  It was a horrific photo, showing the child as malnourished.  Dr Nishana Inderjeeth (“applicant”) was horrified by the photo.  She lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.  In his Ruling of 16 January 2015, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint.

[2]     The applicant complained that the authenticity of the photo, which was published after the child had died, and uploaded from the internet, was not verified; she also wondered whether the permission of the child’s father had been obtained.  She felt that the picture was being exploited for commercial gain; newspapers were not a gossip column.  Respondent’s reply was that the picture was published in the public interest; the child died a horrific death and respondent was “committed to exposing the pain and suffering (the child) suffered.”  Respondent also says the identity of the child was verified by three independent sources, including a local ward councillor.

[3]     I believe the picture was published in the public’s interest.  I take into account also the fact that the respondent says the picture was published in the period when violence against children and women was being highlighted. Subsequent medial evidence showed that the child had been abused; her mother and grandmother were charged with her murder.  I appreciate applicant’s argument that the applicant should have waited until the criminal case had run its cause; but I don’t think the publication of the picture would have impacted on the proceedings.

[4]     In her application for leave to appeal, applicant repeats the issue of the authenticity of the picture.  Again, she argues that the article was fraught with assumptions, apparently referring to the photo.  She also raises new issues which had not been dealt with by the Ombudsman and which cannot of course be raised now.  She concedes though that the matter was of public interest but that the publication of the photo was still not justified.

[5]     I do not find any fault in the manner in which the Ombudsman dealt with the matter.  For the reasons I state above, as well as those by the Ombudsman, I am of the view that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed.

Dated 11 April 2015

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel