Appeal Decision: Sydney Kaye vs. Cape Times

KAYE SYDNEY                                                                                          APPLICANT

VERSUS

[1]     After Mr Sydney Kaye (the applicant) had lodged certain complaints against the respondent, the Ombudsman, in his first Ruling, dismissed the majority of the complaints, but upheld others. The Ombudsman then ordered, as sanction, a reprimand and a publication thereof apparently on the first page. The sanction was foreshadowed in the headline and the teaser on the first page.  The full coverage was published on pages 6 and 7 of the edition in question.  The Ombudsman saw and was satisfied with that.  The applicant was however not satisfied and as a result, submitted a fresh complaint on the basis of respondent’s non-compliance with the first Ruling of the Ombudsman.

[2]     The Ombudsman considered the new complaint.  In his second Ruling, he dismissed the (second) complaint.  It is against this Ruling that the applicant now seeks leave to appeal.

[3]     The Ombudsman held that pages 6 and 7 of the corrective edition did carry the full findings in the Ruling.  I find no fault with this; a large space was devoted thereto. It seems to me that the root of the (second) complaint was that an average reader would not turn to pages 6 and 7.  I do not think so.  The interest would have been aroused by the headline and the teaser, and any anybody wanting to know more would have proceeded to pages 6 and 7.  It is true that the Ombudsman could not waive his earlier decision or depart from it.  But the question is whether he did so.  Looking at the matter objectively, I don’t think he did so; I think a fair balance was struck. In my view, the applicant did get a fair redress.  This is how the Ombudsman saw and expressed the balancing:  “I believed that, even though the front-page headline and the teaser were not satisfactory, the publication of the full finding inside more than made up for it”.  For this reason, I do not think that the appellant has any reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; that being the case, the application fails.

Dated this 30^th day of April 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel