|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Law Students' Journal |
Last Updated: 27 May 2014
SUCICIDE AND THE MEDIA: WHETHER NEW ZEALAND’S STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON THE REPORTING OF SUICIDE ARE JUSTIFIED
SAM BLACKMAN*
Introduction
New Zealand frequently ranks highly in OECD suicide statistics.1 The
2011 statistics rank New Zealand’s female youth suicide rate as highest in all 29 OECD countries and male youth suicide rate as third highest.2
In 2008, 497 people committed suicide in New Zealand.3 This is a rate of 11.2 suicides per 100,000 population. New Zealand’s suicide rate has fluctuated between 11 and 13 suicides per 100,000 population since
2000.4 Many people consider that the media reinforces suicide as
taboo by reporting cases in euphemisms. 5 People may not
realise New Zealand has a statutory regime that restricts publication of any
details of suicides. The media constantly
campaign for liberalisation of the
restrictions.
Parliament introduced a new Coroners Bill in 2005 to replace the
Coroners Act 1988. The press were aghast that the
new Bill still
contained restrictions on reporting suicide. They called the
restrictions
* BA (Major in Philosophy and Logic and Computation); LLB(Hons) (in progress), The University of Auckland. The author would like to acknowledge Rosemary Tobin for her encouragement and critique on this article and Imogen Crispe for her ongoing discourse with him on the subject.
1 “OECD Health Data 2011” OECD (21 July 2011) <www.oecd.org>.
2 National Indicators 2011 National Indicators 2011: Measuring mental health and addiction in New Zealand (Mental Health Commission, Wellington, 2011) at viii.
3 At 14.
4 “OECD Health Data 2011”, above n 1.
5 See for example Laura McQuillan “Quiet pages: the reporting of suicide in
New Zealand’s news media” (2009) Salient <www.salient.org.nz>.
“draconian”, “paternalistic”,
“patronising”, “outdated” 6 and
“unduly restrictive”.7 Four media representatives made
submissions to the Select Committee arguing for the removal of the restrictions.
Their arguments fell
on deaf ears. The Coroners Act 2006 was enacted
containing sections restricting the reporting of suicide. These
sections have retained their basic structure since the Coroners Act
1951.
This article examines the history of and justification for New
Zealand’s restrictions on reporting suicide. The article critically
assesses whether Parliament achieved the right balance between freedom of
the press, public safety and family privacy. In doing
so, it analyses and
evaluates the media’s arguments in their submissions to the Select
Committee. It concludes with suggestions
for the future of the
restrictions.
A. Current Industry Regulations
1. Print media
Print media self-regulates itself through the New Zealand
Press Council. The Press Council provides the public
with an independent
complaint process against newspapers, magazines and other print media.
The Press Council publishes
a list of 11 principles under which the public
may structure complaints. Most major print media organisations
agree
to abide by the principles and provide financial support to fund
the Press Council. The Press Council’s statement
of principles
contains no express mention of the reporting of suicide. Only one
complaint has been made on a report
of an individual instance of
suicide. When complaints have been made on articles discussing suicide
they have related
to Principle 1 (accuracy, fairness and balance),8
Principle 10 (photographs and graphics),9 or have been
general complaints.
6 Commonwealth Press Union (New Zealand Section) “Submission to the
Justice and Electoral Committee on the Coroners Bill 2005”.
7 New Zealand Press Council “2005 Annual Report” (2005)
8 New Zealand Press Council “Case Number: 855 Tony Booker against the
Manawatu Evening Standard” (2001) <www.presscouncil.org.nz>.
9 New Zealand Press Council “Statement of Principles”
2. Broadcast media
Radio and television media are state-regulated by the Broadcasting Standards
Authority. Different broadcasting codes exist for radio,
free television and
pay television. The public complain about breaches of the relevant codes.
Guideline 2e of the Free-to-air
Television Code of Broadcasting Practice states
that “programmes should not glamorise suicide and should not give detailed
descriptions about methods of suicide”. Free-to-air television reports
of suicide may also fall under Standard 3
(Privacy—Broadcasters
should maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the
individual) or
Standard 8 (Responsible Programming—Broadcasters
should ensure that programme information and content is socially responsible).
The Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice makes no express mention of how to
broadcast reports or depictions of suicide. However,
like the Free-to-air Code,
radio reporting of suicide could fall under Standards 3 or 8 (as defined
above).
B. History of the Coroners Act provision on publishing self- inflicted deaths
1. Coroners Act 1951
The current restriction on the reporting of self-inflicted
deaths originated from s 21 of the Coroners Act 1951:
Section 21
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, where it appears to the
Coroner at the commencement or in the course of an
inquest that the
circumstances are such that it appears possible that death may have been
self inflicted, he may direct
that no report, or no further report, of the
proceedings shall be published until after he has made his finding.
(2) Where the Coroner finds that the death was self inflicted,
no report of the proceedings of the inquest shall,
without the
authority of the Coroner, be published other than the name, address,
and occupation of the deceased person,
the fact that an inquest has been held,
and that the Coroner has found that the death was self inflicted.
2. Coroners Act 1988
Section 29 of the 1988 Act retained and revised the suicide reporting
provision from the 1951 Act. The new section stated that if
there had been no
inquest and there was reasonable cause to believe a death was self-inflicted,
then no person could make public
any particulars about the death.10
After an inquest, if the coroner found the death to be self- inflicted,
the only particulars a person could make public were the deceased’s
name,
address, occupation and the fact that the coroner found the death to be
self-inflicted. To make any other particular
public required the express
authority of the coroner. The phrase “make public” replaced
the word “reporting”.
The Act defined “make public” as
publishing by means of broadcast, newspaper, book, journal,
magazine, newsletter,
other similar document, or sound or visual
recording.11
The Government introduced the 1987 Coroners Bill primarily to deal with
the purpose of inquests and cultural issues surrounding
the release of bodies.
12 Members of the House did not discuss the suicide
reporting provision other than to agree with the Department
of
Justice’s report on submissions.13 Two parties made
submissions to the Select Committee on the provision. One submission only
referred to semantic use of “suicide”
instead of
“self-inflicted death” and the breadth of the phrase “make
public”.14 The other submission similarly suggested that
“suicide” be replaced with “self-inflicted death”, but
also
argued that the fact a death was self-inflicted should not be recorded at
all.15 This was on the basis that suicide is a very sensitive
subject for next-of-kin. The legislative history suggests that the only
reasons for retaining the provision in the 1988 Act were to protect the privacy
and dignity of grieving relatives16 and because it appeared to have
worked
10 Coroners Act 1988, s 29(2).
11 Section 29(1).
12 (14 July 1987) 482 NZPD 10430–10432.
13 (19 April 1988) 488 NZPD 3412.
14 S Osborne “Submission to the Justice and Law Reform Committee on the
Coroners Bill 1987” at 5.
15 Ian Beveridge “Submission to the Justice and Law Reform Committee on the Coroners Bill 1987” at 8.
16 (19 April 1988) 488 NZPD 3412.
successfully in practice since 1951.17
3. Coroners Act 2006
Parliament amended and consolidated the Coroners Act again in 2006 after a
Law Commission review in 1999. 18 The Law Commission
suggested that Parliament amend the 1988 Act to create the role of Chief
Coroner so that the government
would take coronial recommendations more
seriously.19 The Parliamentary Debates show the primary reason
for the new Act was to improve public confidence in the coronial process,
particularly
with regards to family involvement and cultural
sensitivity.20
Parliament retained the suicide reporting restrictions, in s 71 of the
2006 Act. Most of s 71 remains semantically identical to s 29 of the
1988 Act. Section 71(1) retains the restriction for reporting prior to an
inquest. Section 71(2) retains the same restrictions after
a coroner finds a
death to be self-inflicted. To make public any other particulars about a suicide
still requires the coroner’s
authority. The phrase “make
public” was extended to include publishing on “an Internet site that
is generally accessible
to the public, or some other similar electronic
means”.21
Prior to a coroner’s inquest regarding a death that may reasonably be
suicide, s 71(1) restricts publication of any particular
relating to how the
death occurred. The plain meaning of “any particular”
includes publication of the
fact that a death was or could have been
self- inflicted. This meaning is further supported by the fact that s
71(2) expressly allows publication that a death was self-inflicted
after a coroner finds the death to be self-inflicted.
In contrast to the old Acts, coroners now have statutory criteria for considering whether to authorise the making public of further particulars. The overarching requirement is that “the making public of those particulars is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety”.22 In
17 Coroners Bill Report of the Department of Justice (1 March 1987) at 7.
18 Law Commission Coroners: A review (NZLC PP36, 1999).
19 At [133]–[136].
20 (14 December 2004) 622 NZPD 18087.
21 Coroners Act 2006, s 73.
22 Section 71(3).
determining this, a coroner must have regard to:23
(a) the characteristics of the person who is, or is suspected to be, the
dead person concerned; and
(b) matters specified in any relevant practice notes issued under s 132 by
the Chief Coroner; and
(c) any other matters the coroner considers relevant.
As of August 2011, the Chief Coroner has not publicly issued any
relevant practice notes. However, the Chief Coroner
has spoken out
publicly on the matter. On multiple occasions he has called for more open
discussion on suicide.24
The Act contains further relevant sections regarding suicide reporting restrictions. The penalty for contravention of s 71 is a fine of $5000 for a body corporate or $1000 for an individual.25 The penalty in the 1988
Act is identical26 and the penalty in the 1951 Act was a
£100 fine or not more than one month’s
imprisonment.27
Section 74 empowers a coroner to prohibit publication of any evidence if
prohibition is in the interests of justice, decency,
public order or
personal privacy. This is a general power which extends to inquests of all types
of death.
The suicide reporting provisions in the Coroners Bill 2005 became one of the
most contentious topics of the new Act. The Electoral
and Law Reform Committee
received four submissions from media outlets and one submission from a mental
health researcher on the
restriction provision alone. Entire pages of
Parliamentary debates were dedicated
23 Section 71(4).
24 Interview with Neil MacLean, Chief Coroner (Kathryn Ryan, Nine to Noon, Radio New Zealand National, 12 August 2010); Rebecca Todd “Suicides outnumber road deaths” (12 August 2010) Christchurch Press
<www.stuff.co.nz>; Chris Banks “The Chief Coroner and suicide
reporting” (27 May 2011) Suicide Prevention Information New Zealand
25 Coroners Act 2006, s 139.
26 Coroners Act 1988, s 43.
27 Coroners Act 1951, s 29.
to arguments for and against the restrictions.28
United Future MP Murray Smith raised the issue of the suicide
reporting restriction in the Bill’s first reading. He
noted that England,
Wales, and Australia do not have a ban on the reporting of suicides,
suggesting that that may be of some influence
to New Zealand.
The Select Committee considered amending the Bill to allow the release of
more details of suicides to the public. 29 However, the
Select Committee ultimately retained the restrictions in the interest of public
safety.30
In the Bill’s second reading, the House recognised how difficult
the task was for the Select Committee.31 Three major points came out
of the second reading:
(1) Families’ privacy should be given due weight and consideration.32
However, some families who have had a suicide in their family favour
liberalising reporting on the topic.33
(2) People have suggested that removing the restrictions may reduce the
number of suicides but the research evidence shows the
contrary.34
(3) The Bill is not about restricting freedom of the
press.35 The changes for which the media were asking were not vital
to allow public debate on suicide to occur.36
The Committee of the whole House debated intensely on the topic. The
Labour Government agreed with the Select Committee’s
decision
28 (14 December 2004) 622 NZPD 18087–18095, 18096–18104; (2 May 2006)
630 NZPD 2664–2577; (25 July 2006) 632 NZPD 4394–4400; (2 August
2006) 633 NZPD 4666–4675.
29 Coroners Bill 2005 (228-2) at 3–4.
30 At 3–4.
31 (2 May 2006) 630 NZPD 2664, 2669, 2672.
32 At 2664.
33 At 2668.
34 At 2664.
35 At 2665.
36 At 2672.
to retain the restrictions. The National Party “sceptically
supported”37 the section but voted against it being passed
in its then form. They thought that the issue needed to be examined
more
closely.38 The worries of the National Party included lack of
evidence that the media “glamorised” suicide, that no other western
country had such stringent restrictions and that the issue of suicide
needed to be publicly discussed.39
C. Current Guidelines for the Reporting of Suicide
1. Ministry of Health 1999 guidelines
In 1999 the Ministry of Health released guidelines on the reporting of
suicide in the media. The Ministry developed the guidelines
to educate media
organisations about suicide generally and the effect that reporting suicide may
have on vulnerable people.40
The guidelines introduce the “copycat suicide” phenomenon. The theory posits that reports of suicide in the media can lead to an increase in suicides surrounding the report. The guidelines then outline the evidence for copycat suicide. Part 2 of the guidelines discusses causes, myths and warning signs of suicide and provides relevant statistics. Part
3 offers practical considerations for media professionals when reporting
or portraying suicides.
Evidence suggests that the guidelines have largely been ignored by the news
media.41 Despite ignorance or rejection of the guidelines, another
study based on data gathered between 2008 and 2009 suggests that the quality
of
reporting is generally consistent with the guidelines.42 A
2010
37 (2 August 2006) 633 NZPD 4672.
38 At 4674.
39 At 4674.
40 Suicide and the media: The reporting and portrayal of suicide in the media (Ministry of
Health, Wellington, 1999) at iii.
41 Jim Tully and Nadia Elsaka A study of the media response to Suicide and the Media: The reporting and portrayal of suicide in the media: A resource (Government funded review, University of Canterbury, 2004) at ii.
42 Brian McKenna and others Reporting of Suicide in New Zealand Media (Te Pou,
Auckland, 2010) at 71.
study interviewed journalists on their experience of reporting suicide.43
This study found that only a third of the participants were aware of the
Ministry of Health guidelines and of that third no
one used the
guidelines.44 The same study found that:45
Most [journalists interviewed] were skeptical of the imitative effects of
suicide coverage, arguing that the true danger lay
with excluding
suicide from the news. This was the primary motivation for resisting guidelines
and restrictions. Suicide coverage
could be cathartic and informative, whereas
the restrictions made the topic unapproachable and unspeakable.
2. World Health Organisation 2008 guidelines
The World Health Organisation published a document titled Preventing
Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals in 2008.46 These
are the latest released guidelines relevant in New Zealand. The guidelines
state that over 50 studies on copycat suicide
exist47 and that
reviews of these studies consistently conclude that media reporting of suicide
can lead to copycat suicides.48 The guidelines provide a detailed and
referenced appendix of the studies.49
The bulk of the guidelines are practical suggestions for the responsible
reporting of suicide. These guidelines are based upon the
scientific evidence
gathered over the last 40 years. The guidelines suggest that people
reporting suicide should:50
(1) take the opportunity to educate the public about suicide;
(2) avoid language which sensationalises or normalises suicide,
or
43 Sunny Collings and Christopher Kemp “Death knocks, professional practice, and the public good: The media experience of suicide reporting in New Zealand” (2010) 71 Social Science & Medicine 244.
44 At 246.
45 At 246.
46 Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals (World Health
Organization, Geneva, 2008).
47 At 6.
48 At 6.
49 At 13–18.
50 At 7–11.
presents it as a solution to problems;
(3) avoid prominent placement and undue repetition of stories about
suicide;
(4) avoid explicit description of the method used in a completed or
attempted suicide;
(5) avoid providing detailed information about the site of
a completed or attempted suicide;
(6) word headlines carefully;
(7) exercise caution in using photographs or video footage; (8) take particular care in reporting celebrity suicides;
(9) show due consideration for people bereaved by suicide; (10) provide information about where to seek help; and
(11) recognise that media professionals themselves may be affected by
stories about suicide.
D. Arguments for Restrictions
There are two primary reasons for the restrictions against suicide
reporting. First, the restrictions aim to reduce
the risk of suicide.
Secondly, the restrictions aim to protect the privacy of the deceased and his
or her family.51 Generally, health professionals and
policymakers accept these two reasons as adequate justification for the
restrictions contained
within the Coroners Act. Media professionals
attempt to refute these justifications and give their own arguments for
liberalising
the restrictions. Discussed below are arguments and counter
arguments for each position.
1. Risk of copycat suicides
(a) Primary evidence
51 See Coroners Bill: Departmental Report (Ministry of
Justice, 27 February 2006) at 16; Burrows, John and Cheer, Ursula Media Law
in New Zealand (6th ed, LexisNexis NZ, Wellington, 2010) at
[8.8.3].
In 1774, Goethe published a novel titled The Sorrows of Young Werther.52
The protagonist, Werther, shot himself because he fell in love with a woman
betrothed to another man. After its release a raft
of suicides across Europe
ensued. Each of these suicides was in a manner similar to that of
Werther’s. Some of the deceased
were found with copies of the book and
others were found dressed in clothing similar to the character. This
is the
first recorded evidence of copycat suicide, otherwise known as
the “Werther effect”.
In 1974 a United States researcher, David Phillips, undertook the first
scientific study of the Werther effect in modern society.53 Phillips
found a significant increase in suicides in 26 out of 33 months in which a
suicide was reported on the front page
of a newspaper.54
Since this study, numerous other researchers have performed direct
research and hundreds of academics have formally reviewed these
studies. The
entire body of evidence consistently points to the conclusion that
the reporting of suicide in the
media can lead to imitative
suicidal behaviour.55
One of the most illustrative studies focused on media reports in Hong Kong in
the late 1990s.56 In November 1998 a woman in Hong Kong committed
suicide by burning charcoal in an enclosed space. Prior to this case there were
no known cases of suicide in this manner.57 The media extensively
covered the suicide. Newspapers graphically reported the story on the front
page. Reports included pictures
of the deceased and the receptacle in which
she burnt charcoal. In the nine weeks following the reports, 22 people
committed
suicide using the same method.58 Within five years
charcoal burning became the second most
52 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe The Sorrows of Young Werther trans William
Rose (Scholartis Press, London, 1929).
53 David Phillips “The Influence of Suggestions on Suicide: Substantive and Theoretical Implications of the Werther Effect” (1974) 39 American Sociological Review 340.
54 At 342.
55 For a brief but thorough history of the Werther effect and relevant studies up until 2008, see WHO guidelines above n 46, at 13–15.
56 Wai Sau Chung and Chi Ming Leung “Carbon Monoxide Poisoning as a
New Method of Suicide in Hong Kong” (2001) 52 Psychiatric Services 836.
57 At 836.
common form of suicide in Hong Kong.59 The rates of other suicide
methods did not decrease in parallel to the increase in suicide by
charcoal burning.60
The most recent review of the entire body of research (a review of 97
studies) concludes that it is reasonable to regard
the association
between newspaper suicide reporting and increased suicide rates as
causal. 61 The same review finds the association between
television reports of suicides and increased suicides weaker than
that in newspaper reports, but concludes that there is still cautious support
for a causal relationship.62
(b) Media contentions and counter arguments
The media continually try to refute the evidence suggesting causation
between reporting suicides and an increase in
suicides following
reportage. This position is most apparent in the Press Council’s
submissions on the Coroners Bill 2005.
They state:63
The Press Council eschews debate on the issue of
“contagion” or “copycat suicide” except to say
that
the evidence to support this is very unclear. We do not agree with the
conclusions the Ministry of Health seem to draw
from their readings of the
academic literature for the booklet “Suicide and the Media, The
reporting and portrayal of
suicide in the media”.
...
Among those who watch with some trepidation the expansion of media
interest in suicide are a number of mental health professionals
who continue to
express their fear that such media interest will trigger
59 Ka Liu and others “Charcoal burning suicides in Hong Kong and urban Taiwan: an illustration of the impact of a novel suicide method on overall regional rates” (2007) 61 Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
248 at 250.
60 At 250.
61 Jane Pirkis and Warwick Blood Suicide and the news and information media: A Critical Review (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010) at 3.
62 At 3.
63 New Zealand Press Council “Submission to the Justice and Electoral
Committee on the Coroners Bill 2005” at 3– 4.
a “copycat” effect. Yet we stress that New
Zealand’s restrictive reporting regimes, set alongside
the rise in
suicides in recent years, would suggest the opposite and even that the
strategy of “censorship” has been
unsuccessful.
The Council has now dealt with several complaints about the
reporting of suicide. In order to reach its findings,
some study of the subject
was obviously necessary. The Council found, as a result, that the research
often relied upon by health
experts is not as conclusive as it had been led to
believe.
Other submissions seem to suggest that the evidence must be wrong because
New Zealand’s suicide rate is so high. The
Commonwealth Press Union
states:64
The premise upon which the section is based is that publicity about
suicides induces others to follow suit. The corollary of
that position must
surely be that silence on the subject will lead to fewer self-
inflicted death[s]. New Zealand’s
woeful suicide statistics
would suggest that such a theory is deeply flawed.
A separate submission from the Commonwealth Press Union
states:65
Central to our submission is the question: is the veil of secrecy that
currently exists helping to reduce suicide rates?
When we have the world’s highest suicide rate for males and females
aged 15-24 years, the answer has to be no.
(c) Critique of media’s position
The media argues against the body of evidence without any evidence in their
favour. The Press Council contends that the evidence to
support copycat
suicide is unclear. This is false. At the time of their
submissions, a significant number
of studies all pointed in the same
direction: media coverage of suicide can cause copycat suicides. That body
of evidence
has continued to grow and the conclusion of the studies
has not changed.
In debating the 2005 Bill, Hon Rick Barker had a similar view. He had
64 Commonwealth Press Union, above n 6, at 1.
done his own research and had found “every piece of evidence to be very
clear”.66 He voiced his cynicism regarding the submissions
from the media that challenged the evidence.
All four media submitters made the following argument:
Health researchers claim that media coverage of suicide causes an
increase in suicides. If this is true, then since we have
restrictions on the
reporting of suicide, we should have a lower suicide rate than other
countries which do not have
restrictions. This is not the case. Our suicide
rate is one of the highest in the OECD. Therefore, media coverage of suicide
must
not cause an increase in suicides.
The problem with this argument lies with the second premise. The
premise states: “If media coverage of suicide
causes an increase
in suicides and we have restrictions on the reporting of suicide, then we
should have a lower suicide rate
than countries without restrictions”.
This premise is implausible. The media conflates a sufficient cause with a
contributory
cause. No one is arguing that media coverage will be the sole
factor causing a suicide without which the suicide would not have occurred.
A
plethora of recognised factors exist as to why people commit suicide. It
is likely that these factors are more prevalent
in New Zealand than other
countries and that is why we have a high rate of suicide.
The media desperately want the freedom to publish suicides in the
manner they choose. However, arguing against a solid body
of scientific evidence
is not an effective method of convincing Parliament to remove the
restrictions.
2. Privacy of victims’ families67
66 (2 August 2006) 633 NZPD 4668.
67 Since the writing of this article, Whata J has recognised a
tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” in C v Holland [2012]
NZHC 2155. The elements of the tort, at [94], include: an intentional
and unauthorised intrusion; into seclusion (namely intimate
personal
activity, space or affairs); involving infringement of a reasonable expectation
of privacy; that is highly offensive to
a reasonable person. A family member of
a person who has committed suicide may well succeed under this tort
against a media
outlet that publishes details about the suicide.
Dealing with a suicide in the family can be difficult. Dr Annette
Beautrais68 of the Canterbury Suicide Project made submissions that
families bereaved by a suicide feel stigmatised, shamed and socially
isolated by the death.69 Beautrais provided a range of
studies which suggested that these families can better cope without media
coverage.70
Hosking v Runting provides New Zealand’s test for whether
information is private and warrants protection. 71 Information
is private if the information holds a reasonable expectation of privacy and
its disclosure would be highly
offensive to a reasonable person
of ordinary sensibilities.72 A legitimate public concern in the
matter can override the right to privacy. 73 Also, in the
context of making suicides public, families can consent to the release of
private facts.
Both the Press Council and the Broadcasting Standards Authority have privacy
principles. The Press Council’s second principle,
“Privacy”, states:74
Everyone is normally entitled to privacy of person, space and personal
information, and these rights should be respected by publications.
Nevertheless the right of privacy should not interfere with
publication of significant matters of public record
or public
interest.
Publications should exercise particular care and discretion before
identifying relatives of persons convicted or accused
of crime where the
reference to them is not relevant to the matter reported.
68 Dr Beautrais is currently a Senior Research Scientist at the Yale School of
Medicine.
69 Canterbury Suicide Project “Submission to the Justice and Electoral
Committee on the Coroners Bill 2005” at 6.
70 At 6–8.
71 Hosking v Runting [2004] NZCA 34; [2005] 1 NZLR 1 (CA).
72 At [259].
73 At [129]. See also Andrews v Television New Zealand [2009] 1 NZLR 220 (HC)
at [81].
74 New Zealand Press Council “Statement of Principles”
Those suffering from trauma or grief call for special consideration.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority includes an appendix to privacy
principles to which broadcasters should adhere. The same appendix
appears in
all three codes.75 The first paragraph of the appendix is a
reiteration of the principle from Hosking v Runting. 76
Paragraph 5 provides that consent is a legitimate defence to a
privacy complaint. Paragraph 8 provides that legitimate public
concern is also
a defence.
A death within a family holds a reasonable expectation of privacy. If
there is no legitimate public concern surrounding the
death and the
family do not wish to make public the death or facts about it, then its
disclosure would surely be offensive
to the reasonable person with
ordinary sensibilities. It follows that a suicide in the family should be at
least as private
as any other death. The stigma, shame and isolation
specific to suicide suggest that a suicide within a family is more private
than
other types of death.
Recent media coverage has shown that many families want coroners to allow
wider publication of their family member’s suicide.77 Even
though family consent removes the privacy concern, the risk of copycat
suicides still exists.
Whether or not there is legitimate public concern in individual suicides is
discussed in Part E below.
75 Broadcasting Standards Authority Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice (Broadcasting Standards Authority, Wellington, 2009) at 12; Broadcasting Standards Authority Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice (Broadcasting Standards Authority, Wellington, 2008) at 8; Broadcasting Standards Authority Pay Television Code of Broadcasting Practice (Broadcasting Standards Authority, Wellington, 2008) at 10.
76 That “it is inconsistent with an individual’s privacy to allow the public
disclosure of private facts, where the disclosure is highly offensive to an objective reasonable person”. See Hosking v Runting, above n 71, at [259].
77 Paul Easton “Suicide victims’ families want details made public” (28 April
2011) The Dominion Post <www.stuff.co.nz>; Maria Bradshaw “Let bereaved speak out to help save other lives” (31 May 2011) The Dominion Post <www.stuff.co.nz>; Chris Banks “The chief coroner and suicide reporting” (27 May 2011) Suicide Prevention Information New Zealand
<www.spinz.org.nz>; (2 May
2006) 630 NZPD 2668.
3. Irresponsible media
The scientific research on copycat suicide has shown that certain
methods of reporting can exacerbate the phenomenon.78 A 2010 New
Zealand study found that “[journalists’] work is shaped by
pragmatic and at times competing imperatives:
career progression,
time constraints, competition for sales, and the public interest.”
79 When media outlets are driven by multiple imperatives, they may
intentionally or unintentionally report a case of suicide
so as to
make it as newsworthy as possible. This may directly conflict with best
practice methods of suicide reporting
and responsible journalism. Senior news
executives have acknowledged that “not all media would
act responsibly,
especially in an intensely competitive
environment”.80 Paul Thompson of Fairfax Media has said that
some irresponsible journalism is the price you pay for an open society
and
free media but most journalists were responsible.81 Perhaps
when that price includes the increased risk of further suicides a small
limitation on media freedom is justified.
The case studies in Part E and F of this article contain likely examples of
irresponsible journalism in reporting suicide.
E. Arguments Against Restrictions
Because the statutory restrictions on reporting suicide are the current
status quo, the burden of proof lies with media
representatives to
disprove or discredit the public safety and privacy concerns s 71
protects.82
1. Freedom of expression
The New Zealand Press Council stated that freedom of expression was at the
heart of their submissions on the Coroners Bill
2005. The
78 Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals, above n 46, at 7–11.
79 Collings and Kemp, above n 43, at 247.
80 Tully and Elsaka, above n 41, at 12.
81 At 12.
82 For a discussion of where the burden of proof should lie
when challenging existing laws (and generally), see Bruce Waller Critical
Thinking: Consider the Verdict (5th ed, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
2005) at 52.
Council opined that, based on their experience in handling complaints
regarding suicide reporting, 83 the public’s
disposition has shifted towards a greater readiness to discuss the
issue of suicide. They suggested
that “the public now actively seeks
information and guidance, as they have never done before” and that it is
the media’s
prerogative to transmit this information to the
public.84
Freedom of expression is codified in s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act. Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act provides that
the rights and freedoms
contained within the Bill of Rights Act can be subject to reasonable
limitations. Judicial interpretation
of this section has formulated
the following test for whether a limit to a right is reasonable and demonstrably
justified
in a free and democratic society:85
(1) The legislation which contains the limitation must have an
important and significant objective.
(2) There must be a rational connection between the limitation and the
objective.
(3) The limitation must be in reasonable proportion to the
importance of the objective.
(4) The limitation must interfere as little as possible with the affected
right.
The privacy and public safety objectives of s 71 of the Coroners Act
2006 are important and significant. The body of research outlined
above gives credence to a rational connection between the
limitation on freedom
of expression and these objectives. The crucial question is whether
the proportion between
the limitation and objective is reasonable
and whether the limitation interferes with freedom of expression as little as
possible.
The research paints a clear picture that there is a real risk of causing a spike in suicide rates by reporting suicides. In Tucker v News Media
83 Note that the Press Council has only adjudicated one complaint on the reporting of an individual case of suicide.
84 New Zealand Press Council “Submission to the Justice and Electoral
Committee on the Coroners Bill 2005”, above n 63, at 2.
85 Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [1999] NZCA 329; [2000]
2 NZLR 9 (CA) at [18].
Ownership Ltd McGechan J explored the connection between freedom of
expression and risk to life:86
Great care must be exercised where the Court is aware that life
potentially is at risk. ... Where a right to freedom
of speech and a right
to life are in competition, the balance must be struck with particular
care.
Although the right to life is not directly in competition with freedom of
expression in the current discussion, lives are still
potentially at risk if
the limitation does not exist. The evidence shows the real risk to life of
reporting suicide. McGechan J’s
statement in Tucker highlights the
importance of protecting the lives and wellbeing of people. This
objective surely
justifies even drastic limitations on freedom
of expression. Even if that is the case, the following reasons further
justify
the limitation as proportional and a minimal impairment to rights.
First, coroners have the discretion to allow the publication
of particulars of suicides. Secondly, the media have
the ability at any time
before or during an inquest to request authorisation from a coroner to publish
particulars about a suicide.
If an inquest has already taken place and the
coroner has not authorised publication, the media can apply to the High Court
for authorisation.87 Thirdly, the limitation only restricts the
publication of particulars about individual cases of suicide. The media
are
free to report on the topic of suicide generally. This can include
annual statistics, factors which cause suicide and public
opinion on suicide.
These three reasons suggest that the proportionality is reasonable and the
limitation interferes with freedom
of expression only minimally in
achieving the objective of the Act.
The Crown Law Office gave the Attorney-General advice that s 71 of the Coroners Act was a justified limitation on the freedom of speech.88
The advice only mentioned the right to privacy as a justified limitation
on freedom of expression. The advice did not mention the risk to
public safety through copycat suicide. But, as argued
above, the risk to
86 Tucker v News Media Ownership Ltd [1986] NZHC 216; [1986] 2 NZLR 716 (HC) at 34–35.
87 Coroners Act 2006, s 75.
88 Letter from the Crown Law Office to the Attorney-General regarding the
Coroners Bill’s consistency with the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (2 November
2004) at [4.2].
public safety also provides a justified limitation on freedom
of expression.
2. The public have a legitimate interest
The media continue suggesting that the public have an interest in
suicide in this country and that they seek information
and guidance. All four
Coroners Bill media submissions argued that the public have a legitimate
interest in suicide in
this country. For a legitimate public interest
argument to succeed, the public interest must outweigh both the privacy
and
public safety concerns. The greater the effect on privacy and public safety, the
greater the level of public concern must be.89
There is little doubt that New Zealand’s suicide rate is a
legitimate public concern. It is also likely that causes
of suicide and
prevention measures are of legitimate concern. Family consent or public
interest can easily overcome the
privacy concern. Examples of this
include cases of murder-suicide where the public should be informed that there
is not a killer
at large. It is harder to argue that public concern is so great
that it outweighs the risk of copycat suicides.
Health researchers express doubt as to whether details about individual cases of suicide need to be published to satisfy legitimate public concern. Professor David Fergusson, director of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, suggests details are unnecessary. 90
Fergusson suggests that an open and frank discussion of the suicide
problem in New Zealand can take place without reporting
individual suicides.
Any legitimate public concern can be satisfied by reporting the general
prevalence of suicide in our society
and what we can do to lower the
risk.
In Hosking v Runting Gault P and Blanchard J distinguish “legitimate public interest” from “general interest”. 91 Most individual cases of suicide are likely in the public’s general interest. Releasing particulars of individual suicides may just stoke the flames of the rumour mill and
89 Andrews v Television New Zealand, above n 73, at [84].
90 Interview with David Fergusson, Director of the Christchurch Health and Development Study (Kathryn Ryan, Nine to Noon, Radio New Zealand National, 25 May 2010).
91 Hosking v Runting, above n 71, at [133].
satisfy the public’s voyeuristic fascination with others’ lives.
Surely the real public interest lies in the causes, prevalence
and warning
factors of suicide. As Fergusson suggests, discussing suicide on a more
general level should satisfy any legitimate
public concern.
The only way for the media to counter this argument is to suggest that
details and particulars of individual cases are necessary
to satisfy the
legitimate public concern. The media could posit that the only way to educate
the public about the causes, prevalence
and warning factors of suicide is to
publish factual human interest stories with which they can connect.
This argument is hard to accept. The debate regarding the reporting of
suicide itself has arguably been more beneficial to public
education and
guidance than any release of individual particulars. Furthermore,
reporters can write newsworthy human
interest stories on the topic of suicide
without including particulars of an individual suicide. It is implausible to
suggest that
releasing particulars of individual cases is the only way to
satisfy legitimate public interest.
Coroners already have the power and discretion to release as much
detail as they see fit. The only caveat on this is that
the statute expressly
states that coroners may only release information if “it will be unlikely
to be detrimental to public
safety”. A situation could arise in
which there is some likelihood of detriment to public safety, but there is also
legitimate
public concern in the matter. In such a situation coroners are
required by the statute not to release any particulars. However,
the
Chief Coroner has interpreted this provision as “you can release
particulars if it will do good”.92 If that interpretation is
accepted, release due to public interest may be justified.
3. Open discussion will lower the rate of suicide
The media’s arguments against the Werther effect were discussed
in Part D above. The media further argue that engaging
in public debate about
suicide will help lower the rate.93
92 Interview with Neil MacLean, above n 24.
93 New Zealand Press Council “Submission to the Justice and Electoral
Committee on the Coroners Bill 2005”, above n 63, at 4;
Commonwealth
There is merit in the suggestion that open discussion will help lower our
suicide rate. Merryn Statham, director of Suicide Prevention
Information New
Zealand, encourages discussion of our suicide rates so the issue does not
get hidden.94 As a public health issue, people should know
about the prevalence of suicide in New Zealand and the factors likely to cause
it.
However, as argued above, it is unlikely that individual cases need to
be reported to engage in discussion about suicide.
The Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister recently published an
advisory report. In this report, Keren Skegg suggests
we heed the
following advice: 95
Beware of naïve claims by ‘instant
experts’—everybody has an opinion about suicide prevention,
and some proposals can be potentially harmful, no matter how
intuitive they may sound. The recent suggestion that
increased coverage of
suicide in the media will reduce suicide is a good example. There is no
evidence at all to support
this theory, and much evidence that it
would actually do harm.
4. The risk from social communication and new media
Media commentators and the Chief Coroner suggest that the risk to the public
is far greater through social and Internet transmissions
than through
the media.96 These transmissions include word of mouth, text
messaging and posts on websites like Facebook, Twitter and blogs. The media
suggest
that they could act as a foil to dispel the false rumours that
inevitably circulate following a suicide in a
community.97
Press Union “Submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee
on the Coroners Bill 2005”, above n 65,
at 1.
94 Interview with Merryn Statham, Director of Suicide Prevention Information New Zealand (Kathryn Ryan, Nine to Noon, Radio New Zealand National, 12 August 2010).
95 Keren Skegg “Youth Suicide” in Peter Gluckman and Harlene Hayne (eds)
Improving the Transition: Reducing Social and Psychological Morbidity During Adolescence (Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee, Auckland, 2011) 207 at 214–215.
96 Interview with Neil MacLean, above n 24.
97 Commonwealth Press Union (New Zealand Section), above n 6,
at [16].
The research on the effect of social media and the Internet to suicide is
still in its infancy. The latest review has found sufficient
evidence to put
forward a cautious hypothesis of causation between social media and
increased rates of suicide.98 Although it is illegal under s 71 to
release particulars through social media, this is difficult to police. If
news of suicides
will inevitably spread through the Internet, social media
and other social channels, then perhaps the restrictions are redundant
and the
media could play a role in setting the story straight.
The criticisms on this position are as follows. The restrictions are only
redundant if there is a one-to-one mapping of social media
consumers and
mainstream media consumers. The communication of a suicide through social
channels and the Internet may only reach
as far as the local community. The
only people likely to be reading a person’s Facebook or Twitter
posts are
people socially connected with that person. Within New Zealand,
reporting suicides in newspapers or on television is likely
to reach a
wider (and different) audience than the audience through the Internet and
social channels. Reporting individual suicides
in the mainstream media also has
the potential to fuel further discussion through social mechanisms. People
commonly use
online social media to share links to mainstream media websites
and reports of suicide.99
Dispelling false rumours would likely require publication of details
which exacerbate the copycat effect like the location
and method of the suicide.
The guidelines and research suggest against including these details in
articles.100 Publication of such details would arguably do more harm
to the public than the harm caused by misinformation held by a limited set
of
people.
5. Other countries lack restrictions
Submissions from the Christchurch Press and the Commonwealth Press Union both argue that since statutory restrictions on the reporting of suicide are uncommon across western countries New
98 Pirkis and Blood, above n 61, at 4.
99 See, for example, a post in Steven Price’s media law blog, Steven Price
“Jumping the gun?” (18 April 2011) Media Law Journal
100 Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media
Professionals, above n 46.
Zealand should remove its restrictions.101
The Commonwealth Press Union lists western countries that do not have
statutory restrictions on the reporting of suicide. These
include the United
Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, Norway, France, the United States and
Australia. The Union then states that
each of these countries uses cooperation
between media, governments and health professionals as a basis for the safe
reportage of
suicide.
Paul Thompson, then editor of the Christchurch Press, also submitted the
following:102
So far as I am aware statutory restrictions of this kind are unusual in the
western world, if not unique. I can think of no logical
reason why New
Zealanders should be any different in this matter than are Australians, or
Canadians, or Americans, and so on.
The restrictions suggest a paternalistic,
patronising attitude towards New Zealanders that is outdated and
unnecessary.
The media’s argument is as follows:
A multitude of countries do not have statutory restrictions on the reporting
of suicide. Instead, they all promote cooperation
between media,
government and health professionals to exercise the safe reportage of
suicide. These countries include
those to which New Zealand looks for
its own law making. Therefore we should adopt a similar position to these
countries.
The fact that other countries lack statutory restrictions provides
no direct reason for New Zealand changing its current
position. This
argument is an argumentum ad populum. It may be the case that New Zealand is
in fact pioneering the way forward
and all of the other countries
should employ statutory restrictions. It may also be that once statutory
restrictions are removed
in other countries it is too difficult to re-enact
them, so countries must do their best to regulate suicide
101 The Christchurch Press “Submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Coroners Bill 2005”; Commonwealth Press Union (New Zealand Section) “Submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Coroners Bill 2005”, above n 6.
102 The Christchurch Press “Submission to the Justice and Electoral
Committee on the Coroners Bill 2005”, above n 101, at [12].
reporting outside of legislation. There could also be reasons specific to New
Zealand that set it apart from other countries
and justify its
statutory restrictions.
The other flaw in this argument is that various jurisdictions to which New
Zealand looks for its own law making do in fact have
statutory restrictions on
the reporting of suicide. For example, coroners in New South Wales and
Queensland have the
power to prohibit the publication of information
about suicides.103
If the media are to appeal to the law in other countries, then they must ask
why those countries lack restrictions. To take the overseas
lack of
restrictions themselves as justification for change in New Zealand is to commit
a logical fallacy. The failure is in arguing
for a conclusion based on the
merits of its source rather than the merits of the proposition itself.
6. No restrictions exist on attempted suicides and overseas suicides
The current restrictions in the Coroners Act do not restrict the media from
reporting attempted suicides or suicides which occurred
overseas. Research has
linked the Werther effect to attempted suicides as well as completed
suicides.104 If media are free to report attempted suicides
and overseas suicides in as much detail as they want, this undermines the
purpose
of the restrictions in the Coroners Act.
In 2008 the Sunday News published a full front-page article on an attempted suicide by broadcaster Tony Veitch. 105 The front page contained photographs and the text “VEITCH SUICIDE BID”. The article provided the method, address and a photograph of the location of the attempt. The Sunday News published a similar front-page article in 2009, again with photographs and text reading “VEITCH IN SUICIDE ATTEMPT”.106 Various newspapers printed a total of 28
103 Coroners Act 2009, s 75 (NSW); Coroners Act 2003, s 41 (Qld).
104 Pirkis and Blood, above n 61, at 6.
105 “Veitch in suicide Bid” (7 September 2008) Sunday News
106 John Matheson “Veitch in suicide attempt” (19 April 2009) Sunday News
articles on Veitch’s suicide attempts and television news
stations reported the attempts twice. 107 These instances of
reporting clearly breached the guidelines for responsible suicide reporting.
Reports were prominently placed
and repetitive, the method and location
of the attempts were explicitly described, headlines were not worded carefully
and
the news was particularly sensitive due to the celebrity status of
Veitch.
Similarly, because coronial jurisdiction covers only deaths within New
Zealand, 108 overseas suicides can be reported without
restriction. Multiple news outlets published the method of Split Enz drummer
Paul
Hester’s suicide in Melbourne in 2005.109
These stories demonstrate that irresponsible journalism can occur in relation
to suicide reporting. Although the guidelines
for suicide reporting
extend to attempts and overseas suicides, the restrictions in the Coroners Act
do not.
7. The media circumvents restrictions using euphemisms
When black letter law restricts the media from reporting on an issue and
the media disagree with that law, the media try their best
to find ways around
the law. For reporting suicide, that comes in the form of euphemisms.
When the media is restricted from reporting what they otherwise consider a newsworthy suicide, they still report it but do not call “suicide”. Common euphemisms include “the death was not suspicious” and “no one else is sought in connection with the death”.110
People read these phrases in context with the rest of the story and
quickly realise that the story regards suicide.
The Christchurch Press
often reports suicides as “suspected suicides” if the coroner
has not
107 McKenna and others, above n 42, at 92.
108 Coroners Act 2006, s 59(a).
109 Martin Johnston “Media push for more freedom in suicide reports” (7
April 2005) New Zealand Herald <www.nzherald.co.nz>.
110 See Tully and Elsaka, above n 41, at 10.
allowed the release of particulars.111
The New Zealand Herald reported the location of the June 2011 King’s
College student suicide without using the word “suicide”.112
The Herald wrote: “He was found critically injured at Greenlane
Bridge, south of the central city, a short time later and
rushed to Auckland
Hospital, where he died.”
The Herald makes no mention of suicide or jumping, but gives enough
information for the reasonable person to infer both. The media’s
circumvention of the statutory restrictions in this manner further undermines
the restrictions’ intended purpose.
8. Self-regulation as an alternative
An appeal to other countries’ suicide reporting regimes does
not in itself strongly suggest that we should remove
our own restrictions. But
there may be independent reasons that we should strive towards a cooperative
regime of regulatory guidelines
as opposed to statutory restrictions.
Research suggests that “ownership” of guidelines is important to
media professionals and that media professionals
would prefer to wait
for media sanctioned guidelines than adopt and follow Ministry of Health
guidelines. 113 Notwithstanding the issue of whether or not
media professionals should follow the Ministry of Health guidelines, it seems
that they are not following the guidelines.114
This is unfortunate because the Ministry of Health guidelines, although over
a decade old, still contain valuable information
consistent
with
111 See McKenna and others, above n 42, at 124. See also an audio clip of Paul
Thompson (Jeremy Rose, Media Watch, Radio New Zealand National, 21
September 2008).
112 “King’s College in mourning after student’s death” (12 June 2011) New
Zealand Herald <www.nzherald.co.nz>.
113 Collings and Kemp, above n 43, at 247.
114 At 246.
current research and the 2008 WHO guidelines.115
Researchers also found that while the quality of most reports was
consistent with the Ministry of Health guidelines, very few
items followed
suggestions of methods to make a positive impact.116
Researchers recently interviewed senior media professionals and found they
felt their interactions with health professionals and
policymakers have been
ineffective and detrimental to collaboration.117 Those media
professionals welcomed a fresh partnership grounded in mutual respect.
In December 2011, the media collaborated with the Ministry of Health, health
researchers and the Chief Coroner to create updated
reporting
guidelines.118 All of the material in the new guidelines can be
found in previous guidelines. In a press release, Associate Minister of
Health
Peter Dunne expressed optimism that the new guidelines would work because
of the media contribution and buy-in. 119 Whether Dunne’s
optimism is well-founded remains to be seen.
F. The Latest Position from Coroners
In August 2010, the Chief Coroner, Judge Neil MacLean, released information
to the media concerning the number and methods
of suicides in the
preceding year.120 This reignited the debate between the media and
health professionals. Judge MacLean’s view was to encourage
more openness, public debate and media coverage of the suicide
rate.121
Since the widespread publication of Judge MacLean’s position it
seems
115 Peter Dunne Report to the Prime Minister: Review of the restrictions on the media reporting of suicide (Ministerial Committee on Suicide Prevention, 4
November 2010).
116 McKenna and others, above n 42, at 71.
117 Collings and Kemp, above n 43, at 246.
118 Reporting Suicide: A resource for the media (Ministry of Health, Wellington,
2011).
119 Ministry of Health “Dunne releases media suicide reporting guidelines” (press release, 22 December 2011).
120 Rebecca Todd “Suicides outnumber road deaths” (12 August 2010) Christchurch Press <www.stuff.co.nz>.
121 Interview with Neil MacLean, above n 24.
that other coroners are beginning to more frequently release particulars of
individual suicides. Taranaki coroner Tim Scott
released extensive
particulars on at least five suicides between February and July 2011. The
Manawatu Standard and Taranaki Daily
Times reported most of these
suicides122 and the Dominion Post ran a front-page article on one
of the suicides.123
On 3 February 2011, the Taranaki coroner authorised the publication of all
details on a suicide that occurred in 2009. On 4 February
2011, the Manawatu
Standard ran a front-page article on the suicide which contained a detailed
description of the method
of suicide. 124 The following day
the newspaper published an article on a separate suicide, the reporting of which
was again authorised by the coroner.125 The newspaper published a
detailed description of the method of suicide, the location of the suicide
and the deceased’s
personal circumstances leading up to the suicide. The
coroner’s justification for the release of details was that the method
was common. In March, the Taranaki Daily News published an article about
a man with “an extreme and unsuccessful
gambling habit”
who committed suicide. 126 The article mentioned the method and
the man’s circumstances on the day he died. On 25 May 2011 the Dominion
Post published
a front-page article on the suicide of Luana Nicholson.127
The newspaper quoted the coroner as saying:
I do not think it can be detrimental to public safety to make public the details of Luana’s death. Sad and tragic as it is, death by hanging is a
122 Jimmy Ellingham and Stacey Kirk “Oversight ‘failed’ suicidal student” Manawatu Standard (Palmerston North, 4 February 2011) at 1; Stacey Kirk “Obsessive man took own life” Manawatu Standard (Palmerston North, 5
February 2011) at A3; Lyn Humphreys “Events suspicious, but death
suicide” Taranaki Daily Times (New Plymouth, 23 March 2011) at 3.
123 Clio Francis “Luana’s tragic tale” Dominion Post (Wellington, 25 May
2011) at A1.
124 Jimmy Ellingham and Stacey Kirk “Oversight ‘failed’ suicidal student” Manawatu Standard (Palmerston North, 4 February 2011) at 1.
125 Stacey Kirk “Obsessive man took own life” Manawatu Standard
(Palmerston North, 5 February 2011) at A3.
126 Lyn Humphreys “Events suspicious, but death suicide” Taranaki Daily
Times (New Plymouth, 23 March 2011) at 3.
127 Clio Francis “Luana’s tragic tale” Dominion Post (Wellington, 25 May
2011) at A1.
very common method of suicide in New Zealand. ... There is nothing
particularly mysterious about it and publication of details here,
should the
media wish to do so, is not going to make it any more likely that people will
take their lives by hanging in the
future. Sadly this is a given, the
method is so well-known.
The article contained a photograph of Nicholson and a further detailed
description of the method she used to commit suicide.
The Taranaki coroner is not the only one authorising the release of
particulars. The Chief Coroner released details in late
2010 of a suicide in
Whangarei.128 Newspapers once again reported a detailed description
of the method and location of suicide and photographs of the
deceased.129 The Wellington coroner also recently released
particulars of a suicide committed using an uncommon method.130
Multiple news outlets, including newspapers, television websites and radio
stations reported the story with a detailed description
of the method.131
In the articles, the coroner was quoted as saying:
There is a body of opinion that believe it is detrimental to allow the
publication of particulars of suicide in that it may induce
what I have
referred to as “the copycat syndrome”. ... I believe that due to
the availability to any person who is
able to access a computer database in this
age, that it is information freely available for the world to see. The cat as
they say
is out of the bag. ... My answer is that I believe that in this day and
age it is simply not possible to 'cover up' any disclosure.
This evidence suggests that coroners are gradually liberalising the restrictions of their own accord. From the recent coverage, it also seems as if journalists are taking coroners’ authorisations as a
128 Mike Dinsdale “Judge reveals details of Northland woman’s suicide” (17
December 2010) Northern Advocate <www.northernadvocate.co.nz>.
129 Dinsdale, above n 128; “Suicide verdict in Cloudy Williams inquest” (16
December 2010) Otago Daily Times <www.odt.co.nz>.
130 “Coroner aims spotlight on dangers of helium” (22 August 2011) New
Zealand Herald <www.nzherald.co.nz>.
131 The Stuff website, the Dominion Post, the Marlborough Express, the Manawatu Standard, the Nelson Mail, the Press West Coast, the Sunday Star Times and the TVNZ website all published Fairfax reporter Clio Francis’s story “Helium suicide sparks call for review” (22 August 2011)
<www.stuff.co.nz>; Katrina Bennett “Details of young man’s suicide
released” (22 August 2011) Newstalk ZB <www.newstalkzb.co.nz>.
recommendation to publish, rather than just permission. In conjunction with
the lack of respect for suicide reporting guidelines,
this could create
a dangerous environment for people vulnerable to suicide. Coroners
should make it clear that
they are not recommending publication and
that should a media outlet choose to publish, that outlet should have
due
respect for guidelines.
G. Suggestions for the Future
There are three options in relation to the current statutory restrictions for
suicide reporting. Parliament could:
(1) retain the status quo and leave the restrictions in place as they
are; or
(2) extend the restrictions to include attempted and
overseas suicides; or
(3) relax or completely remove the restrictions.
From the evidence and arguments for the restrictions there is no reason for
relaxing or removing the current restrictions. The media’s
attitude
towards the Werther effect and the possibility of irresponsible
journalism means that it would not be prudent
to remove the current
restrictions outright. If anything, restrictions and caution should be extended
to attempted suicides and suicides
committed overseas. While this does not
fit within the jurisdiction of coroners, it could come within the domain
of media
regulatory bodies or be codified elsewhere.
In the meantime, the Government should employ a dual headed
approach for the future. First, the Government
should educate
journalists, coroners and the public of the risk of reporting suicide. Secondly,
the Chief Coroner should issue
a practice note outlining the risk of
permitting journalists to report particulars of a suicide. The practice
note should
also emphasise that the burden of proof lies with those who seek
permission.132
Most media professionals are sceptical about the evidence for
the
132 Walker, above n 82.
Werther effect.133 If media professionals were properly educated
on the matter, they might accept the sobering fact that their reporting
of
a suicide could contribute to the further death of a person. The Ministry of
Health and Ministry of Education should
work closely with
institutions teaching journalism to incorporate responsible suicide
reporting into the curriculum.
This should include education on the relevant
studies on the Werther effect. This would better arm young journalists with
the
evidence on which to decide whether their articles are responsible.
The Chief Coroner has the power to issue a practice note on matters relevant to authorising suicide reporting.134 The matters in a practice note then become mandatory considerations for coroners in determining whether to authorise publication of suicide particulars.135
The Chief Coroner should issue a practice note that formally outlines the
risk of copycat suicide. The default position in the Coroners
Act is to
restrict the reporting of individual suicides. The note should
emphasise that the burden of proof is on anyone
who wants to publish details
about a suicide. Discharge of that burden requires either proof that the
publication will not be detrimental
to public safety or that the public interest
in the matter outweighs the risk to public safety.136
Coroners should also more readily enforce the penalties on media
outlets that report particulars of a self-inflicted
death
without permission. The examples provided earlier in this article show
the media’s complete disregard of
the safe reporting guidelines. The media
likely thought they were circumventing the Coroners Act restrictions by
reporting the June
2011 King’s College student death137 without
using the term “suicide”. However, since there was reasonable
cause to believe the death was self-inflicted,
reporting the student’s
name, school and the location of his death was in breach of the Act. Such
reporting should be deterred
through more frequent application of the
penalty provisions.
133 Collings and Kemp, above n 43, at 246.
134 Coroners Act 2006, s 132(3)(a).
135 Section 71(4)(b).
136 The latter disjunct is based upon the Chief Coroner’s own interpretation of s 71(3).
137 “Kings College in mourning after student’s
death”, above n 112.
Despite the risk of copycat suicides, there is growing evidence that the
media can play a positive role in preventing suicide. A recent
Austrian study
has shown that some methods of reporting suicide can reduce the rate of
suicide.138 The study found correlation between news articles on
people who had adopted coping strategies other than suicide in adverse
situations
and a reduction in suicide rates. 139 These
methods of reporting should be encouraged in guidelines and journalism
training. Furthermore, as the body of evidence
for beneficial (or at least
non- harmful) suicide reporting grows, Parliament could relax the restrictions
in line with the evidence.
Conclusion
The media continue to put forward fallacious arguments for removing the
current restrictions on reporting suicide. Contrary
to these
arguments, the body of evidence on copycat suicide supports
Parliament’s decision to retain the
restrictions. The biggest downfall of
the media’s position is their reluctance to accept the evidence.
The media
can play a role in reducing our suicide rate. However, before this can
happen, they must accept that safe and effective suicide reporting
should be
grounded in science, evidence and rational
argument.
138 Thomas Niederkrotenthaler and others “Role of media reports in completed and prevented suicide: Werther v Papageno effects” (2010) 197
British Journal of Psychiatry 234.
139 At 241.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZLawStuJl/2012/4.html