Appeal Decision: Tim Edwards vs YOU, Huisgenoot and News24
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Heartbroken Centurion parents: ‘We want answers about our son’s fatal shooting’ (published online on 26 April 2021 and on 29 April 2021 in print).
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.
Tim Edwards lodged a complaint against You magazine, Huisgenoot and News24.
The article was about their 16-year-old son who had died as a result of a shot from a firearm at his friend’s home in a room in which apparently it was only the two of them.
Edwards complained that the article was inaccurate and unfair, and that the clause in the Press Code that catered for the protection of children was also breached. One of the complaints was that the article referred to the incident as an “accident”, which implied, according to Edwards, absence of fault on the part of anybody in relation to the shooting.
After dismissing some of the complaints, the Deputy Ombud held that the publications had misstated/misquoted:
- the child’s age (as 17, instead of 16);
- that the Edwards family slept in the same bed, as opposed to in the same room;
- Josh’s condition (that he had bled from his ears); and
- Julie Edwards (the mother) as saying Josh’s friend looked like a corpse.
He imposed a reprimand, upon which Edwards lodged an application for leave to appeal.
Judge Ngoepe said he could find no reasonable prospects of success that an appeal would succeed. For example, the reference to an “accident” could not stand scrutiny because the article made it clear that investigations were still going on.
He agreed with the finding and sanction of the Deputy Ombud and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
THE RULING ITSELF
In the matter between:
Tim Edwards Applicant
and
YOU, Huisgenoot and News 24 Respondents
Matter No: 8939/04/2021
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
- Mr Tim Edwards (applicant) lodged a complaint against You magazine, Huisgenoot and News 24 (respondents) against an article with the headline “Heartbroken Centurion parents: ‘We want answers about our son’s fatal shooting’.” The publication was on 26 April 2021 online and on 29 April 2021 in print. It was a truly tragic story: their 16 year old son (Josh) died as a result of a shot from a firearm at his friend’s home in a room in which apparently it was only the two of them. Thereafter the journalist interviewed both families. The complaints followed those interviews. Eventually the complaints were about the accuracy of what was reported. One of the other complaints was that the article referred to the incident as an “accident”, which implied, according to the complainant, absence of fault on the part of anybody in relation to the shooting. It was complainant’s case that clause 1 of the Code was contravened; furthermore, that clauses 2 and 8 were also breached.
- The respondent’s reaction to the complaints was that the reporting was fair and in accordance with the Code. The Public Advocate felt so but the Ombud felt that there was a prima facie case that the Code had been breached. Indeed in the end, the Deputy Ombud, in his Ruling dated 26 August 2021, after dismissing some of the complaints, held that the publications contravened the provisions of Clause 1.1 of the Code in the following respects: misstating the age of Josh as 17 instead of 16; misstating that the Edwards family slept in the same bed as opposed to the same room; misstating that Josh bled from his ears and misquoting Julie Edwards (the mother) as saying Josh’s friend looked like a corpse. The sanction imposed was a reprimand.
- The complainant now seeks leave to appeal the Ruling. I do not think the technical grounds raised by the respondents in opposition to the application have any merits and agree that the application should not be dismissed on those grounds. I agree that leave to appeal should only be granted where there are reasonable prospects of success. I must therefore assess that.
- The respondents have gone into details in their opposition to the application, dealing with each relevant complaint. There is no need for me to engage in a hair splitting exercise. Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success that an appeal would succeed. To take one complaint as an example: the issue of “accident” or not accident, about which the complainant feels strongly, cannot stand scrutiny because, as the respondents point out, it was clear from the article that investigations were still going on. One has a profound understanding of how the Edward family feel, but I am of the view that the Deputy Ombud was generous to some extent in at least some of his findings made in favour of the complainant; I have tabulated them above. One reason I tabulated the breaches is to indicate that the finding that the breaches were Tier I infringements was justified. The points raised by the complainant in the application were dealt with by the Deputy Ombud. As the respondents say, there is no basis on which the Appeal Panel would find differently. It is difficult to see what point of substance turns around somebody having been on a patio or pavement or the issue relating to the “unanswered questions”, and “was the other boy too traumatised to speak” in relation to the overall substance of the story. As I have just said, one has a profound understanding of the complainant’s sense of loss, having personally lost a son suddenly who had been alright only a few hours earlier; but there is no basis to question the Deputy Ombud’s findings.
- The application therefore fails for the reasons given above.
Dated this 29th day of September 2021
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
