Appeal Decision: Seymour Vernon vs. Sunday Times

SEYMOUR VERNON                                                                                  APPLICANT

AND

[1]     Vernon Seymour (“applicant”) lodged a complaint against the Sunday Times (“respondent”) in respect of the story which appeared in the 15 May 2016 edition of the respondent, with the headline: “Some shady characters on August party lists”.  The applicant was named as one of these people.  The basis on which he was described as a shady character was an allegation of sexual harassment against him.  The story mentioned that he had been found guilty by an arbitrator, who recommended that he be banned for life from participating in soccer administration.  The allegations were made against him while he was a soccer administrator.  The applicant is an August election candidate.  The story also mentioned other “shady characters”, though the applicant was the first to be mentioned and written about and he was the only one whose picture was shown. He complained that the respondent contravened articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the Press Code.  In essence, he complained that the report was not truthful, accurate and balanced.

[2]     The respondent’s defence was that the story was about “controversial” politicians who were fielded as candidates; did not and could not go into the merits of the events giving rise to controversies; but only gave a “brief overview of the controversies”.

[3]     In his Ruling dated 8 June 2016, the Ombud dismissed the complaint.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the Ruling, and the respondent opposes the application.  The points relied upon by the parties are really still the same.

[4]     For the applicant to succeed, all he needs to show is reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; not that he will succeed. I have considered the arguments raised by both parties, as also the Ombud’s Ruling and the reasons for his conclusion.  I am of the view that the applicant has reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel.  As I am therefore inclined to grant leave, it would not be appropriate for me to go into the merits of the case, save to state the following:

4.1    I am concerned that the headline speaks as a fact of “shady characters”.

4.2    The respondent says the story was about “controversial” politicians. There is room to argue some inconsistency between a “shady” character/politician and a “controversial” character/politician.  One of the consequences of such a variance may be that the content of the story does not match the categoric heading of “shady” characters.

4.3    There is room to argue that, while it is true that respondent did not have to go into the merits of the allegations or controversies, it should at least have stated that the applicant had consistently been denying the allegations, given inter alia the following (none of which mentioned in the story):

4.3.1 three tribunals found t in his favour;

4.3.2      at least 2 people contradicted the allegation, one of whom  said he was present at the time and place of the alleged incident.

4.4    Respondent accepts “that Mr Seymour’s case is complex, politised and ongoing”.  But I have reservations about whether the manner in which the story was written took cognisance of, and reflected, that.

4.5    Respondent did not at all mention that the applicant denied the allegations, but, in defence, says that his “denial should be inferred from his subsequent actions”.  This is highly arguable; as also whether, given the seriousness of the allegations, those “actions” have been set out, and, if so, in a manner that would enable such an inference.

[5]     I accordingly hereby grant leave to appeal.

Dated this 19^th day of July 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel