2nd Appeal Decision -Jurie Roux vs News24

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Has Jurie Roux captured SA Rugby? (published on 14 March 2022).

This ruling by the Chair of the Appeals Panel Judge Bernard Ngoepe was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

Jurie Roux applied for leave to appeal the ruling by the Deputy Press Ombud dated 28 August 2022, in which he had refused to entertain the complaint due to its late filing (after the Public Advocate did the same).

This matter was appearing before Judge Ngoepe for the second time, after he had remitted it to the Press Ombud.

Judge Ngoepe accepted the reasons why the Public Advocate and the Press Ombud dismissed the complaint. As nothing new had been added in the application, he dismissed it.

THE RULING ITSELF

BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between:

Jurie Roux                                                                                                                  Applicant

and

News24                                                                                                                  Respondent

Matter No: 9507

1. This is an application by Mr Jurie Roux (applicant) for leave to appeal the Ruling of the Deputy Press Ombud dated 28 August 2022. The Ruling refused the condonation of the late filing by the applicant of his complaint against News24 (respondent) in respect of what the latter had published of the applicant on 14 March 2022 with the headline “Has Jurie Roux captured SA Rugby?” I do not intend to go into details about this matter, which is now appearing before me for the second time, after I had remitted it to the Press Ombud.
2. The issue before me is a narrow one: whether the applicant has reasonable prospects that the Appeals Panel will condone his late filing of the complaint. His explanation has always been, and remains, that he was involved in review proceedings before the court, reviewing arbitration proceedings about the same subject matter. It has now become a tired topic. Neither the Public Advocate nor the Press Ombud found any adequate explanation why the applicant did not file his complaint while at the same time pursuing the review application before court. Both of them have given full reasons why there is no adequate explanation for his delay.  In its application for leave, the applicant has added nothing of substance that is new. I need not repeat the reasons given by the Public Advocate and the Press Ombud, except to add the following:

2.1 The underlying consideration for the resolution of disputes in terms of the Press Code, is to ensure that complaints are dealt with expeditiously. If time frames are not adhered to without any adequate explanations the purpose would be defeated.

2.2 The Press Ombud has made a finding that the prospects on the merits are not good.

3. In the circumstances, the following Order is made:

• The application is dismissed.

Dated this 3^rd day of October 2022

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel