Megan de Klerk vs. Volksblad

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Megan de Klerk and those of news editor Charles Smith and journalist Ruan Bruwer of the Volksblad newspaper.

Complaint

De Klerk is complaining about a story in Volksblad of 6 August 2015, headlined Oud-Cheetah kontrak in Skotland kwyt – Kontrak kwyt weens beweerde teistering. The same main headline was also carried above the masthead on page 1.

She complains that:

·         her identity was not relevant to the story and yet she was identified – which brought unnecessary stress to her and her family; and

·         her infant was identified without the necessary consent.

De Klerk adds that she understands why the newspaper reported the story about her husband, “but there was no need to talk about us (read: her and her baby), my wedding anniversary had nothing to do with this”.

The text

The story, written by Ruan Bruwer, said former Cheetah rugby player Rossouw De Klerk faced charges of harassment against a woman in a Scottish court. The article stated that he had become a father a mere week before the publication of the story (the journalist mentioned the child’s name), and that he and his wife, Megan, had recently celebrated their first wedding anniversary.

The arguments

Smith argues that the journalist did a good job – he contacted the player directly to get his comment, and he also comprehensively sketched the circumstances of the charge. “The facts that he recently married and had a baby were appropriate… The article clearly stated that he thought he was innocent and that he is going to plead as such. Also, he has not appeared in court yet and has also not been found guilty, which is why it was not incorrect to mention names.”

Bruwer argues that, had De Klerk been guilty of foul play on the rugby field, the identities of his wife and child would have been irrelevant. “[However], should he been found guilty and go to jail, what about his wife and child? I think the information [complained about] was relevant for the sake of completeness.”

De Klerk replies that, if the newspaper wished to report that her husband was married and a father, it could have done so without naming them – “…it would have painted the same picture which they say they were trying to do. This article has caused me severe stress, and harassment from people I do not even know… Also to my family which is already dealing with difficulties. I also struggle to see how it is relevant to name my [i]nfant daughter.”

Analysis

Firstly, and probably most seriously, it was not appropriate to identify the child (even though the journalist was justified in reporting that the rugby player was a father, as this fact was relevant). The Press Code is clear about this. Although this would not cause the child harm in the near future, the probability that it could do so later is significant.

The same goes for the subject’s wife (as far as the mentioning of her name is concerned). While it was relevant that De Klerk was married, nothing but unnecessary harm was added to the story by identifying her.

Lastly, I find it difficult to understand how a newspaper can argue that it was justified to identify an accused before he or she has pleaded (as stated in the story). It is an established principle that an accused should not be named before he or she has appeared in court and pleaded.

This amounted to an invasion of his (and his family’s) privacy.

Finding

The identification of the child is in breach of Section 8 and 8.1 of the Press Code which says, “The Bill of Rights (Section 28.2) in the South African Constitution states: ‘A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.’ The press, applying the spirit of this section, shall therefore exercise exceptional care and consideration when reporting about children. If there is any chance that coverage might cause harm of any kind to a child, he or she shall not be interviewed, photographed or identified without the consent of a legal guardian or of a similarly responsible adult and the child (taking into consideration the evolving capacity of the child), and a public interest is evident.” (I have added some emphases.)

The identification of Ms De Klerk was unfair to her as it caused her unnecessary harm. This is in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code: “The press shall take care to report news…fairly.”

The identification of Mr De Klerk was in breach of Section 4.1 of the Code that reads, “The press shall exercise care and consideration in matters involving the private lives and concerns of individuals…”

Seriousness of breaches

Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of our Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).

The breaches of the Press Code as indicated above are all Tier 2 offences, although the completely unnecessary identification of the baby came close to being a Tier 3 offence.

Sanction

Volksblad is directed to apologise in writing to Ms De Klerk privately for wrongly and unfairly identifying her and her child, in the process causing them some serious, unnecessary harm.

The newspaper is also asked to publish the following text on page 3:

If the offending story was published on the newspaper’s website, the above-mentioned text should go there as well.

The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as “Matter of Fact”, or something similar, is not acceptable.

Appeal

Our 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 Ombudsman