Dr Ingrid Tufvesson vs. Sunday Times & TimesLive

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, A CV that raises more questions than it answers; and, Eskom pulls out all stops for Brown’s lover (published on 29 October 2017).

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

 

The stories were published on 29 October 2017; the complaint was only lodged on 21 January 2018.

This complaint was dismissed on the ground that that Dr Ingrid Tufvesson did not provide a “good and satisfactory reason” for having filed her complaint nearly two months after the deadline for doing so had expired, as required by the Complaints’ Procedures.

Retief said that, while he was not demeaning Tufvesson’s illness in any way whatsoever, it was difficult to apprehend why she had not simply instructed her attorney to lodge the complaint in time and why she did not mention her illness in her communications with the Public Advocate.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

PARTICULARS

Complainants	Dr Ingrid Tufvesson
Lodged on behalf of complainant	Mr Chixx Matsie of Tony Tshivhase Incorporated
Publication	Sunday Times & TimesLive
Date of articles	29 October 2017
Headlines	A CV that raises more questions than it answers and Eskom pulls out all stops for Brown’s lover
Respondent	Susan Smuts, internal ombud of Sunday Times

Late filing of complaint

The facts

The facts are as follows:

·         The stories were published on 29 October 2017;

·         On the same day Tufvesson wrote a letter to the editor, Bongani Siqoko, asking if the journalist had received permission to publish a picture of her house;

·         On October 31, Smuts confirmed that the editor was responsible for all published content;

·         Under normal circumstances, the complaint should have been lodged by November 24;

·         On January 4, Tufvesson e-mailed the Public Advocate (PA), enquiring if she could still file this complaint;

·         On January 9 Matsie sent an e-mail to this office, requesting indulgence and condonation, as he intended filing a second complaint against the Times – more than six weeks after the period of 20 working days had expired; and

·         The complaint was lodged on 21 January 2018.

The question is if there was a good and satisfactory reason for this delay, as required by Section 1.3 of the Complaints Procedures.

The arguments

Matsie says due to ill-health Tufvesson could not immediately take steps to file a complaint with this office. He says both a neurologist and an ophthalmologist attended to her as she was losing her vision, which made it difficult for her to draft her complaint.

He explains, “The treatment that our client was receiving for the abovementioned conditions took place in November and December 2017, furthermore the holidays of December made it impossible for our client to file [this] complaint.”

He argues that Tufvesson has consistently sought to have the harm remedied by the newspaper, failing which to seek recourse from the Ombud. He concludes, “Although our client is educated, she does not have the requisite knowledge of media law, nor did her previous attorney, [which] is why she was ignorant about the time-frames for filing of complaints.”

Smuts argues that Tufvesson was well aware of the article before she needed medical attention as she corresponded with the newspaper immediately after publication. She also complained to the Ombud about a previous story which had been published on October 15, and was able to submit that complaint on November 10.

She adds, “It would have been easy for her to alert [this office] to her intention to complain about the subsequent stories at that stage, even if she wasn’t able to submit the actual compliant. We also note she has not stated in her application for condonation exactly when she needed medical attention, leaving it vaguely at November and December, whereas the other dates mentioned in her complaint are specific.”

Smuts concludes that the complaint is long overdue and that Tufvesson’s medical situation did not excuse her late submission; she asks me to reject her complaint on these grounds.

My considerations

This is an interesting complaint, from a media ethical perspective – and I am itching to allow it for that reason. However, I should look clinically at the matter, as I also need to adhere to the Complaints Procedures – and be consistent in this regard with relation to similar rulings.

Firstly, while Matsie is arguing that Tufvesson was too sick to lodge a complaint, it was in fact he – and not his client – who has lodged it with this office. Surely he, or another attorney, could have lodged the complaint during her illness.

I also need to take into account (and I say this with respect) that she was not too ill to lodge another complaint during the time of her illness, on November 10, and that she also communicated with the PA on November 13 and on November 16 regarding her first complaint (when she wrote e-mails to her – and asked to speak with her on telephone two days later).

I note that Tufvesson did not refer to this (her second) complaint during these various communications with the PA, when she had an opportunity to do so – the first record I have of her intention to lodge another complaint is on January 4, and even then the complaint was only lodged nearly three weeks later.

Therefore, while I am not demeaning Tufvesson’s illness in any way whatsoever (far from it), it is difficult to apprehend why she had not:

·         simply instructed her attorney to lodge the complaint – and leave it in his capable hands; and

·         mentioned it in her communications with the PA during November.

I also have no record of Tufvesson having “consistently” sought a remedy from the newspaper – I have only evidence of one such a case (on October 29).

It is also a bit rich to argue that Tufvesson did not know of the time limit. This was not her first complaint – besides, her e-mail dated January 4 clearly suggests that she knew about some sort of time-frame (as she asked for clarity on whether she was able to submit this complaint).

If this office has received a notification of a complaint to come in good time, I would have granted a late filing with pleasure.

Given these facts, I have no option but to dismiss the complaint on the ground that that the complainant did not proffer a “good and satisfactory reason” for having filed her complaint nearly two months after the deadline for doing so had expired.

I do so reluctantly, for the reason given above – but I need to adhere to my own rules, and do so consistently. If I do allow this complaint, I would create a precedent which would be difficult, if not impossible, to follow.

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 [email protected].

Johan Retief

Press Ombud