New Zealand Law Commission Reports
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Law Commission Reports |
|
Last Updated: 1 April 2014
E31(131)
March 2014, Wellington, New Zealand | R E P O R T 1 3 1
SUICIDE REPORTING
March 2014, Wellington, New Zealand | REPORT
131
SUICIDE REPORTING
The Law Commission is an independent, central advisory body established by
statute to undertake the systematic review, reform and
development of the law
of New Zealand. Its purpose is to help achieve law that is just, principled,
and accessible, and that reflects
the heritage and aspirations of the peoples
of New Zealand.
The Commissioners are:
Honourable Sir Grant Hammond KNZM – President
Judge Peter Boshier
Dr Geoff McLay
Honourable Dr Wayne Mapp QSO
The General Manager of the Law Commission is Roland Daysh
The office of the Law Commission is at Level 19, 171 Featherston Street, Wellington
Postal address: PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Document Exchange Number: sp 23534
Telephone: (04) 473-3453, Facsimile: (04) 471-0959
Email: com@lawcom.govt.nz
Internet: www.lawcom.govt.nz
National Library of New Zealand Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
New Zealand. Law Commission. Suicide reporting.
(Law Commission report ; no. 131)
ISBN 978-1-877569-53-1 (pbk.)—ISBN 978-1-877569-52-4 (PDF)
1. New Zealand. Coroners Act 2006. 2. Suicide—New Zealand.
I. Title. II. Series: New Zealand. Law Commission. Report ; no. 131.
345.930522—dc 23
ISSN: 0113-2334 (Print) ISSN: 1177-6196 (Online)
This paper may be cited as NZLC R131
This Report is also available on the Internet at the Law Commission’s
website: www.lawcom.govt.nz
ii Law Commission Report
28 March 2014
The Hon Judith Collins
Minister Responsible for the Law Commission
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON Dear Minister
NZLC R131 – SUICIDE REPORTING
I am pleased to submit to you the above Report under section 16 of the Law
Commission Act 1985. Yours sincerely
Sir Grant Hammond
President
Suicide Reporting iii
Foreword
Suicides occur with distressing frequency in New Zealand. Sometimes they go
unremarked. On other occasions they may attract significant
public and media
attention.
Whether restrictions should be placed on the reporting of suicides, or some
aspects of them, has given rise to controversy. The existing
law on the subject
has also been criticised as needing clarification.
The Law Commission was asked to review and report on the law relating to
the reporting of suicides by both the traditional media
and in social media. It
has done so, and its recommendations are set out in this Report.
The Report will be tabled in Parliament by the Minister Responsible for
the Law Commission, and when so tabled will be publicly
available for
comment.
The government of the day will determine how to respond to the Report.
It may do so as part of a review of the Coroners
Act 2006, presently being
undertaken by the Ministry of Justice. But a response to the Report is
entirely a matter for the
government.
The Commission hopes that its recommendations will clarify the law
and help reach a balanced conclusion on the difficult
issues of public health
and freedom of expression that are raised by suicide
reporting.
Sir Grant Hammond
President
iv Law Commission Report
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all the people and organisations that provided
input during this review. We would especially like
to thank the Chief
Coroner, the Coroners Reference Group, the Media Freedom Committee, Dr
James Hollings, the Mental Health
Foundation, Dr Sunny Collings, Dr
Annette Beautrais, Dr David Fergusson and the Ministries of Justice and
Health for
their thoughtful and constructive engagement with this review.
A list of those with whom we consulted can be found in Appendix
B of this
Report.
The project was led by the Honourable Sir Grant Hammond. The Senior
Legal and Policy Advisor was Linda McIver, the Senior Researcher
and Policy
Advisor was Cate Honoré Brett and the Research Clerk was Catherine
Moreau-Hammond.
Suicide Reporting v
vi Law Commission Report
Contents
Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... v Chapter 1 Introduction and summary of recommendations ................................................................... 2
Chapter 2 The harm from reporting suicide
.........................................................................................
11
Chapter 3 The legislation
.......................................................................................................................
19
Chapter 4 Guidelines
..............................................................................................................................
26
Chapter 5 Current media practice of reporting suicide in New Zealand
............................................ 30
Chapter 6 The justifications for reform
................................................................................................
37
Chapter 7 The scope of the proposed statutory restriction
.................................................................. 39
Chapter 8 Freedom of expression
..........................................................................................................
46
Chapter 9 Standards for reporting suicide
............................................................................................
50
Chapter 10 Summary of recommendations
...........................................................................................
56
Appendix A
.............................................................................................................................................
59
Terms of Reference
............................................................................................................................
59
Appendix B
..............................................................................................................................................
60
Consultation list
.................................................................................................................................
60
Appendix C
.............................................................................................................................................
61
Key systematic reviews of the evidence
...........................................................................................
61
Appendix D
.............................................................................................................................................
64
Guidelines for reporting suicide
........................................................................................................
64
Suicide Reporting 1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction and summary of recommendations
Chapter 1
Introduction and summary of recommendations
INTRODUCTION
The essential problem
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Each year there are over 500 self-inflicted deaths in New
Zealand.1 For the most part these desperately sad events do
not attract widespread notice or media attention. Lives pass in quiet pain.
But
in a small and close knit society such as New Zealand a not insignificant
number of suicides attract media or social media
attention, some of an intense
kind.
Considerable debate has occurred as to the appropriateness and
effect of media and social media commentary on suicidal behaviours,
and whether
legislative intervention is required.
One viewpoint is that any
comment about an individual suicide falls squarely within the bounds of
the right to freedom
of expression, and may be beneficial in helping
public and private understanding of the causes and consequences of suicide.
On this argument, there are libertarian, therapeutic and educative reasons
for having no restrictions on the reporting
of suicide, save that
presentation of comment should be in reasonably good taste.
At the other
end of the spectrum are those who contend that no comment at all should be made
about the circumstances of the suicide,
beyond the bare acknowledgement of it.
This is because, it is said, there is sound evidence that certain types of
reporting can
produce a contagion effect, and more deaths.
The context of this Report
1.5
The Minister for Courts has Cabinet approval for advancing
legislative amendments to the Coroners Act 2006 reflecting a
targeted review
of the coronial system. It was in this context that in July 2013 the Minister of
Justice asked the Law Commission
to undertake a subset of that exercise: a
first principles review of the legislative provisions restricting the reporting
of suicide.
Whatever recommendations the Commission has to make to Parliament
can then be taken into account by the Government in the course
of that
targeted review.
Governmental responses
1.6
1.7
Broadly speaking there have been two different kinds of responses to
the issue of media reporting on suicide.
Overseas jurisdictions have
sought to ameliorate the possible negative effects of reporting suicide
(such as copycat behaviour,
or florid glorification, or undue invasions of
privacy) by a combination of voluntary guidelines for the media, along with
education
programmes aimed at promoting a better understanding of suicide and
the potential negative effects of reporting it.
1 Ministry of Health Suicide Facts: Deaths and intentional self-harm
hospitalisations 2010 (2012), at ix.
2 Law Commission Report
1.8
New Zealand has been alone in endeavouring to use legislation to
affirmatively restrict reporting of suicide. It has
sought to do so by what
are presently sections 71 to 73 of the Coroners Act 2006 (Coroners Act).
That legislation provides:
71 Restrictions on making public of details of self-inflicted
deaths
(1)
No person may, without a coroner's authority, make public any
particular relating to the manner in which a death occurred
if—
(a) (b) (c)
the death occurred in New Zealand after the commencement of this
section; and there is reasonable cause to believe the death was
self-inflicted; and
no inquiry into the death has been
completed.
(2)
If a coroner has found a death to be self-inflicted, no person
may, without a coroner's authority or permission under
section 72, make
public a particular of the death other than—
(a) (b)
the name, address, and occupation of the person concerned; and the fact
that the coroner has found the death to be self-inflicted.
(3)
(4)
The only grounds on which a coroner may under this section authorise
the making public of particulars of the death (other than
those specified in
subsection (2)(a) and (b)) are that the making public of particulars of that
kind is unlikely to be detrimental
to public safety.
In determining whether
the grounds specified in subsection (3) are made out, a coroner must
have regard to—
(a) (b)
(c)
the characteristics of the person who is, or is suspected to be,
the dead person concerned; and
matters specified in any relevant practice
notes issued under section 132 by the chief coroner; and
any other
matters the coroner considers relevant.
72 Permission referred to in section 71(2)
For the purposes of section 71(2), this section gives permission
for—
(a) (b)
(c)
the publication by the Independent Police Conduct Authority, under
section 34(1)(b) of the Independent Police Conduct Authority
Act 1988, of a
report that includes a particular of the death; and
the publication by the
Commissioner of Police, under section 34(2) of that Act, of an opinion or
recommendation under section 27
or 28 of that Act, or a part of any such
opinion or recommendation, that includes a particular of the death;
and
the making public by a person of a particular of the death
contained in any such report, opinion, recommendation, or part of
an opinion or
recommendation, published under that
Act.
73 Definitions for sections 71 and 74
In sections 71 and 74,—
make public means publish by means of—
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
broadcasting (within the meaning of the Broadcasting
Act 1989); or a newspaper (within the meaning of the Defamation
Act 1992); or
a book, journal, magazine, newsletter, or other similar
document; or a sound or visual recording; or
an internet site that is
generally accessible to the public, or some other similar electronic
means
particular, in relation to a death, means a detail relating to
the manner in which the death occurred, to the circumstances of
the death,
or to an inquiry into the death.
Suicide Reporting 3
CHAPTER 1: Introduction and summary of recommendations
1.9
1.10
These restrictions have been in New Zealand law for over half a
century now. Earlier, the Coroners Acts of 1951 and 1988
each contained
different iterations of them. It should be noted that the legislation
restricts reporting only of the details of
suicides. It does nothing to
restrict the reporting of the problem of suicide in general. Also, the
restrictions apply to “self-inflicted”
deaths rather than
“suicide” deaths because suicide requires an examination of the
intention of the deceased person,
which is a matter to be determined by a
coroner.
In the course of an inquiry coroners also have the powers in
section 74 of the Coroners Act. These powers are not specific
to suicide,
but may be used to specifically prohibit the reporting of some evidence at a
suicide inquiry:
74 Coroner may prohibit making public of evidence given at any part
of inquiry proceedings If satisfied that it is in the interests of justice,
decency, public order, or personal privacy to do so, a coroner may prohibit the
making public of—
(a)
(b)
any evidence given or submissions made at or for the purposes
of any part of the proceedings of an inquiry (for example,
at an inquest);
and
the name, and any name or particulars likely to lead to the
identification, of any witness or
witnesses.
1.11
The restrictions in sections 71 and 74 are enforced via an offence in
section 139:
139
Publication of information in contravention of section 71 or prohibition
under section 74
Every person commits an offence against this
section, and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 in the
case
of a body corporate, or $1,000 in any other case, who publishes or permits
to be published any information in contravention of—
(a)
(b)
section 71 (which relates to restrictions on the making public
of details of self-inflicted deaths); or
a prohibition under section 74
(which empowers the coroner to prohibit the making public of
evidence given at any part of inquiry proceedings).
The policy objectives behind the present New Zealand
restrictions
1.12
1.13
1.14
The policy objectives of the current statutory reporting constraints appear
to be to:
. avoid “inquest by media” before a
coroner has had a proper opportunity to review the
evidence and make a ruling as to manner of death;
.
protect public health by reducing the risk of copycat behaviour;
and
. protect the privacy of bereaved
persons.
Parliament has taken the view that sufficient risk of
contagion effects from suicide coverage by the media exists that both
statutory restrictions, at least in certain respects, and a voluntary media
protocol for reporting are necessary. As we have
noted, New Zealand is
unique in the world in this respect. We discuss the evidence of potential harm
from reporting suicide in
detail in Chapter 2.
In the course of
our research and consultation we have encountered a frequent
misunderstanding that the
restrictions in the Coroners Act are intended
to gag the media in relation to suicide, or to shut down discussions on
suicide. Nothing in the Coroners Act prevents the media or any person from
discussing suicide as a public health issue.
The current restrictions only
restrict reporting the particulars of individual suicides, unless the coroner
has authorised their
publication. In fact, most suicide prevention policies
advocate talking openly about suicide, but doing so in a way that is sensitive
to the bereaved, respectful of the deceased
4 Law Commission Report
and does not further endanger vulnerable people. It is hoped that such
open discussions of suicide will encourage vulnerable
people to seek
help.
The case for reform
1.15
The Commission puts forward three principal reasons for advocating,
as we do, the reform of the law in this subset of coronial
law.
The current statutory rules are not working
1.16
1.17
The Commission is of the view – as is everybody we have consulted
– that for one reason or another, the statutory
provisions are not
working at all or are working inadequately in some respects.
The
difficulties are these:
. There is much uncertainty about
what exactly is restricted under the current provisions.
Coroners themselves have had difficulty, and are even divided, on the
interpretation of some aspects of the current statutory rules.
The news media
are also uncertain. We will deal with the difficulties of statutory
interpretation in Chapter 3 of this Report.
For the moment it is sufficient
to note that uncertainty as to the relevant law is quite
inappropriate.
. If the law means what it literally
seems to say, it is not being observed. Of a sample of
suicide reports in mainstream media or in social media analysed by our
staff, the law was not observed approximately 20 per cent
of the time.
.
When even clear breaches are detected, the law is not being
enforced. This again engenders
disrespect for the rule of law.
. The law as
it presently stands is uneven in its application. The current restrictions do
not
apply to overseas suicides. To take a simple illustration, the manner of
Marilyn Monroe’s death can be reported, but not
that of the recent death
of a high profile Wellington barrister, the late Mr Greg King.
.
Experts in suicide prevention generally agree that the evidence
clearly shows some forms
of reporting of suicide are associated with a subsequent copycat effect,
but distinct debate remains around the circumstances
under which that
effect occurs. The international research is clear, however, that
publishing the method of suicide
carries a distinct risk factor. A judgement
is required as to whether there is a sufficient risk to warrant a
statutory prohibition
of some kind, at least as to the manner of
death.
. In this subject area technology has again stolen a
march on the law. The problems we have
encountered and grappled with in the work of the Commission about
media convergence and overlap also apply in this instance.2 Social
media has completely changed the modes of communication. A restriction that
appears to have been framed essentially with
mainstream media in mind is now
inappropriate, although as currently drafted the law also applies to social
media.
The evidence of harm does not justify a broad prohibition on suicide
reporting
1.18
We consider that the body of evidence described in Chapter 2 relating to
the harm of reporting suicide is large and significant.
It warrants attention
by any person publicly describing a suicide death to ensure that such reports
do not inadvertently increase
the risk of harm.
2 Law Commission The News Media Meets ‘New Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age (NZLC R128, 2013); Law
Commission Harmful Digital Communications: The adequacy of the current
sanctions and remedies (NZLC 2012).
Suicide Reporting 5
CHAPTER 1: Introduction and summary of recommendations
1.19
1.20
We are of the view, however, that the only evidence strong enough
to justify a statutory prohibition (enforced through
a criminal conviction
and fines) is the evidence linking the reporting of the method of the
suicide death to subsequent
suicidal behaviour. Evidence of harm from
reporting other details of a suicide death (such as speculating as to
the
causes of the suicide) or from reporting the suicide in a particular
manner (such as glorifying or sensationalising the
death) is not clear
enough to justify a complete prohibition and criminal
sanctions.
However, we consider that the evidence does justify and
require suggestive practical (although not formal) limits on the freedom
of
expression of the sort that we indicate later in this report. In essence these
are more nuanced obligations enforced by industry
self-regulation.
A new set of guidelines is required
1.21
1.22
1.23
Two attempts have been made in New Zealand to evolve practice
guidelines for reporting suicide by the mainstream media.
These stand
alongside the statutory restrictions. In Chapter
4 we discuss these
attempts and why they appear to have been ineffective. In our view the
main reasons are the lack of
agreement by people from different viewpoints and
the lack of an adequate ongoing programme for dissemination, education and
support
for the guidelines.
Given this fraught history, we analysed
various legislative regulatory models of enforcement for guidelines. That
analysis is set
out in Chapter 9. We concluded that guidelines for safe
reporting of suicide are not suitable for any form of legislative enforcement
against media or social media because they cannot be expressed with
sufficient certainty to support a legislative obligation
without becoming an
unjustified restriction on the right to freedom of expression.
Despite
that, we also concluded that preparing, consulting, disseminating, providing
education and evaluating a new set of guidelines
should be a statutory
obligation. Therefore, the evolution of guidelines in New Zealand is
unfinished business. The
successful implementation of guidelines will
require strong leadership from the Minister of Health.
The principles for reform
1.24
The principles that should be kept firmly in mind in this reform exercise are
as follows:
. Whatever the new law is to be, it must be
certain.
. It must as far as possible be
even-handed.
. It must observe the usual principles for
judicial and quasi-judicial inquiries, namely that the
integrity of the inquiry must be maintained. A coronial inquiry should
not be subverted by inappropriate collateral comments
such as (inferentially)
the manner of death before the coronial finding is complete.
.
So far as can be reasonably anticipated, the law must respect
inappropriate risks to people.
These include undue intrusions on privacy.
.
It must respect the difficulties of reconciling freedom of speech
and the public health goal of
reducing suicide deaths by better articulating and endeavouring to
address the private and public harms of suicide.
. At the
same time, the limits of the law must carefully be kept in mind. Some matters
are not
susceptible to legal regulation; nor should they be. The law cannot control
everything. Some matters cannot effectively be transposed
into black letter
law, but should be left to publicly available guidelines if they are dealt
with at all.
6 Law Commission Report
Our terms of reference
1.25
1.26
1.27
The terms of reference for this review require the Commission to consider
whether the current legislation in sections 71–73
of the Coroners Act
strike the appropriate balance between the benefits of freedom of speech and
the public health goal of
reducing suicide deaths.
In particular the
Commission has been asked to consider:
. the information
about a self-inflicted death that is appropriate to make public, and at
what
stage of the coronial investigation;
. the
definitions to support the proposals including, if relevant,
“detrimental to public safety”,
“particulars” and any particular relating to the
“manner” in which a death occurred;
.
whether the same provisions should apply for different forms of
media; for example, media
organisations, bloggers and social media; and
.
the rules for reporting suspected suicides outside New
Zealand.
Our formal terms of reference are attached as Appendix
A.
Consultation
1.28
1.29
1.30
We must report by 28 March 2014. Because of the tight timeframe for this
reference we have conducted a targeted consultation
rather than, as is the
usual practice of the Commission, first publishing an issues paper for
public comment. A list of
the people we have consulted is attached as Appendix
B.
The Ministries of Justice and Health, the Chief Coroner and his
colleagues, the Media Freedom Committee and experts in suicide
prevention
have been briefed on a broad outline of our proposals. They were
generally supportive of the direction of
the proposals and particularly
look forward to further development of options for the content and enforcement
of standards of
practice.
Broadly speaking, those we consulted support
our proposals. As always there are matters of fine detail on which there are
differences,
but the essential underpinnings are supported.
A SUMMARY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
1.31
1.32
In a Report of this character it is helpful to have an overview of where
we think the law should go, so that the chapters that
follow do not have to be
read in isolation.
For the following reasons, we consider that the
current sections 71–73 of the Coroners Act should be
redrafted:
. There is a strong public interest in the right
of freedom of expression.
. Death by suicide is
sometimes newsworthy.
. The current legislative
prohibition against reporting details of a suicide without
the
permission of the coroner is ambiguous in part, not well understood,
frequently not complied with, seldom enforced, and does not
encourage good
journalistic practice.
. There is significant evidence
that some aspects of reporting of suicide are associated with
subsequent suicidal behaviour.
Suicide Reporting 7
CHAPTER 1: Introduction and summary of recommendations
. The growth in social media and internet use, together with growing demands for more open public conversations about suicide, necessitate strong guidance on the type of reporting that will not increase the risk of subsequent suicidal behaviour.
. Voluntary guidelines have had a somewhat fraught history in New Zealand. Overseas
practice demonstrates guidelines work best when they are collaboratively drafted and there is ongoing support for their dissemination and implementation.
. Our recommended combination of a statutory prohibition, more tightly defined than the
existing restrictions, together with upgraded and clarified standards of
practice, will enable better decision making about
reporting suicide both
by journalists and commentators in social media.
The reforms in a nutshell
1.33
The present statutory restrictions are overly broad and confusing. They
need to be confined and clarified. Alongside that
statutory requirement we
recommend further consultation for a revised standard set of practice
guidelines, for publication by the
Ministry of Health. However, these
guidelines would not be legislated. They would be “enforced”
through the current
media oversight mechanisms.
Legislative prohibition
1.34
A narrow prohibition on publishing the method of death should be maintained
in the following way:
. Unless the Chief Coroner or the
Deputy Chief Coroner has granted an exemption, no person
may directly or indirectly make public the method of a
death.
. Unless the Chief Coroner or Deputy Chief
Coroner has granted an exemption or has made
a finding that a death is a suicide, no person may make public a
description of a death that describes it as a suicide.
. The
prohibitions should apply if a death occurs in New Zealand after the
commencement of
this restriction and there is reasonable cause to believe the death was
self-inflicted.
. “Make public” should have
the same meaning as currently in section 73 of the Coroners
Act.
. “Method of a death” includes the
site of the death where a description of the site is suggestive
of the method.
. Nothing above prevents a
person from stating that a death is a suspected suicide.
An exemption
1.35
An urgent exemption from the statutory restriction should be able to
be obtained in the following way:
. Any person may apply
to the Chief Coroner for an exemption from the prohibitions
above.
. The Chief Coroner must not grant an
exemption unless satisfied that the circumstances are
such that any risk of copycat suicidal behaviour from the making
public of the method of the death, or from describing
the death as a
suicide, as the case may be, is small and is outweighed by other matters
in the public interest.
8 Law Commission Report
. In making that determination, the Chief Coroner may be assisted by an expert panel comprised of suicide prevention experts and media experts. The Ministry of Health should constitute a panel for that purpose of not more than three people. Their fees and expenses should be met under the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations 1974 or similar.
. To ensure that an application for an exemption is dealt
with speedily:
(a) (b)
The Chief Coroner must, so far as is practicable, give priority to any
application for an exemption in order to ensure that it
is dealt with
speedily.
The Chief Coroner may deal with an application by any means of
communication he or she considers appropriate, but must keep a record
of any
determination, with short reasons.
. For the purposes of these provisions, the “Chief Coroner” should include the Deputy Chief
Coroner when the Chief Coroner is unavailable.
Review
1.36
There should be an ability to get an urgent review of the Chief
Coroner’s determination whether to grant an exemption in the
following
way:
. The right in section 75 of the Coroners Act to apply
to the High Court for a review should
be amended to also apply to a person affected by a refusal by the Chief
Coroner to grant an exemption from the statutory prohibition.
.
The decision of the High Court is final.
. A
refusal by the Chief Coroner to grant an exemption from the statutory
prohibition should
not be reviewable in the High Court under the Judicature Amendment Act
1972.
Coroners’ powers
1.37
The powers of a coroner during an inquiry should not be
diminished. Nothing in these amendments should affect the
current powers
of a coroner under section 74 of the Coroners Act.
Enforcement
1.38
Section 139 of the Coroners Act should apply to breaches of the
recommended statutory prohibitions. In respect of those
breaches:
.
The maximum fine should increase to $20,000 in the case of a body
corporate and to $5,000
in any other case.
. The offence should not
apply to a person who hosts material on websites or other
electronic
retrieval systems that can be accessed by a user unless the specific
information has been placed or entered on the site
or system by that
person.
Guidelines
1.39
The statute should provide that:
. The Minister of Health
(or his or her delegate) must prepare a revised set of standards
for
suicide reporting.
. In doing so the Minister
must consult with representatives of the media and of mental health
interests, and with such other people as he or she considers
appropriate.
Suicide Reporting 9
CHAPTER 1: Introduction and summary of recommendations
1.40
1.41
The new standards should:
. apply to every person
publicly reporting on a suicide death, including in mainstream media,
a blog or social media; and
. be implemented
via a non-legislative mechanism (for the mainstream media, that means
via
the various media standards bodies).
The statute should require the
Minister of Health (or his or her delegate) to implement an ongoing
programme to disseminate,
promote and support the implementation of the
standards, and to evaluate the success of those standards in achieving the
goal of low-risk reporting of suicide.
The broad consequences of the foregoing proposals
1.42
We now summarise what we see to be the practical impact of these proposals,
if implemented:
. The uncertainty as to the ambit of
the present provisions will cease. The legislative
prohibition on reporting particulars of the suicide will be limited to only
the method of the suicide (including the site of suicide where a
description of the site is suggestive of the method) and to the fact
that
the death is a suicide. This will have the effect of sending a much clearer
message that reporting these aspects of a suicide
carries a significant
risk of public harm.
. A breach of that legislative
prohibition will carry liability for a conviction and fine. This
more limited prohibition should be easier to prosecute because it
will be clearer what behaviour breaches the section.
.
The statute will require the Minister of Health to advance,
consult on and publish a new set
of suicide reporting standards material.
. The
implementation obligations on the Minister of Health will require
an ongoing
programme of engagement with the media and the public. The aim of this programme is to educate people about the risk of harm from some forms of suicide reporting and suggest ways to report suicide where it is newsworthy, while minimising that risk. That programme could include:
. publicising the standards;
. preparing education material for dissemination;
. holding discussions with journalism training schools about including the material in the
curriculum;
. holding face-to-face meetings with journalists and editors;
. providing a telephone based advice service;
. proactively following up on breaches of the standards with editors;
. systematically monitoring compliance with the code; and
. regularly reporting on compliance and enforcement
activities.
10 Law Commission Report
Chapter 2
The harm from reporting suicide
INTRODUCTION
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
The policy objectives behind the present statutory restrictions on
reporting suicide are to protect public health by reducing
the risk of
copycat behaviour; to avoid an “inquest by media” before the
coroner has had a proper opportunity
to determine the manner of death; and
to protect the privacy of bereaved persons.
In this chapter we begin
by describing the evidence supporting the public health concerns behind
the first objective. We
also discuss the harm that reporting suicide may cause
to people bereaved by suicide and the harm that may be caused to the integrity
of the coronial system.
The critical questions that need to be
squarely asked are: do the risks to public health of reporting suicide
merit
consideration of a special regime? And if so, is the harm such that
a prudential restriction is required, notwithstanding
the provisions of the
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
Publishing details of a
suspected suicide is presently treated as a “special case” in
our law because of the
risk of a “contagion” effect.
Normally, such comment would be left to be constrained, to the extent
it
is constrained at all, by the general law. If, however, a contagion effect
of a sufficient degree cannot be demonstrated
on an evidential
basis, there is no justification for a “special” legal
constraint.
THE EVIDENCE OF A CONTAGION EFFECT
2.5
2.6
A contagion effect occurs when an already vulnerable person emulates
the suicide of another person that they know about,
either through
personal knowledge or through reports. This is sometimes referred to as a
“copycat suicide”. This
effect has been recognised for over 200
years and is sometimes called “the Werther Effect”. That name
derives from
Goethe’s 1774 novel The Sorrows of Young Werther,
which depicted the suicide of a young man who fell in love with a woman
who was to marry another man. After the novel was
published a spate of
suicides were noticed that closely aligned with the circumstances depicted in
the novel.
A contagion effect has been suggested as a cause of suicide
clusters. A cluster occurs when there are more suicides within a
time
period than would normally be expected. When the cluster occurs within a
geographical region it is referred to as
a “point cluster”. This
type of cluster is not specifically associated with media reporting. Rather,
the contagion
effect is said to occur through social learning within
communities. However, it has also been suggested that point clusters
are
not the result of contagion at all, but occur because people who are
vulnerable to suicide tend to associate or “cluster”
together
through the natural formation of relationships and
communities.3
3 Thomas E Joiner “The Clustering and Contagion of Suicide”
(1999) 8 Current Directions in Psychological Science
89.
Suicide Reporting 11
CHAPTER 2: The harm from reporting suicide
2.7
2.8
2.9
When a cluster occurs within a time period but not within a defined
geographical region, it is referred to as a “mass
cluster”. Mass
clusters tend to be associated with media reports of suicide deaths by
celebrities or high profile people.
An example of a mass cluster was the
suicide of Marilyn Monroe, which was thought to lead to a further 303
suicides in the
United States (an increase of 12 per
cent).4
For more than 200 years, but particularly in
the past three decades, scientists have studied the contagion effect of
reporting suicide. More than 80 studies have been produced, many of which
provide evidence of a copycat effect from media
reporting – that is,
evidence of a rise in the suicide rate following a suicide story in the
media. However, many
of the studies did not demonstrate that the person
who died by suicide actually saw the media report, so it is not possible
to
say that the media report caused the suicide.
We examined a
significant body of those studies to understand causes, mechanisms and size
of the contagion effect. We placed
particular emphasis on systematic reviews
of the studies. In systematic reviews scientists have gathered all
published
studies on the subject and analysed them for their relevance,
quality and findings. While individual studies will
always have
limitations, these systematic reviews across a broad range of studies applied
scientific method to the analysis of
the body of evidence and were able to draw
conclusions about the general trend of the data and the strength of that trend.
A summary
of the findings of the systematic reviews is attached as Appendix
C.
The mechanism of the contagion effect
2.10
2.11
Media reports of a suicide do not affect everyone equally. While
most readers will not be affected, a minority of already
vulnerable people
may be affected. The research shows young people and those with mental
health problems may be particularly
vulnerable to suicide
reports.5
People bereaved by suicide have a higher risk of
suicide and so may also be particularly vulnerable.6
The
mechanism of the contagion effect of a media report is understood under the
framework of social learning theory – that
is, behaviour is learned
through a process of observation and is then copied. People learn through the
media that some people “solve”
their problems by suicide.7
This learning process is stronger when the person observing
identifies with the person observed, or the person observed
is presented
as a successful person.8 The process is particularly strong when
the person observed is a celebrity or famous person.9 Copying
the general behaviour of “successful” people, particularly those
who share similar characteristics to the
person copying, is seen as an
effective means of acquiring similar
success.10
4 S Stack “Media coverage as a risk factor in suicide” (2003) 57 J Epidemiol Community Health 238 at 238.
5 DP Phillips and LL Carstensen “Clustering of teenage suicides after television news stories about suicide” (1986) 315 N Engl J Med 685.
6 John R Jordan “Is Suicide Bereavement Different? A Reassessment of the Literature” (2001) 31 Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 91; Alison Chapple and others “How people bereaved by suicide perceive newspaper reporting: qualitative study” (2013) 203 BJP 228.
7 Steven Stack “Suicide in the Media: A Quantitative Review of Studies Based on Nonfictional Stories” (2005) 35 Suicide and Life Threatening
Behavior 121.
8 Thomas Niederkrotenthaler and others “Copycat effects after media reports on suicide: A population-based ecologic study” (2009) 69 Soc Sci
Med 1085.
9 Michel Tousignant and others “The impact of media coverage of the suicide of a well-known Quebec reporter: the case of Gaetan Girouard” (2005) 60 Soc Sci Med 1919.
10 Alex Mesoudi “The Cultural Dynamics of Copycat Suicide”
(2009) 4 PLoS ONE e7252.
12 Law Commission Report
2.12
Reports of suicides contribute to other suicidal behaviour if
they create more positive definitions of suicide
(advertising the
method of suicide, glorifying the suicide, providing sensational
coverage, normalising the suicide) than
negative definitions (focusing on
the pain of suicide, promoting alternatives to suicide).11 The
remainder of this section describes the different ways in which media
reports of suicide may promote those positive
definitions of
suicide.
“Advertising” the method of suicide
2.13
2.14
2.15
A number of studies have found that reporting the method of a
suicide has a significant imitative effect on subsequent
suicides,
especially when the victim was a celebrity and when people identify
with the age and sex of the victim.
Reading of the
“successful” use of a method may make that option appear more
readily achievable to a vulnerable
person. Although information on suicide
methods is readily available if a person searches for it, removing the
requirement
to actively search for methods may make a suicide more
likely. Publishing the specific location of a suicide, where that
location is
specifically linked to the method of suicide, has been shown to have a similar
effect. For example, reports that
state that a body was found under a high
bridge, cliff or building is an indication that the person died by jumping
from that
place.
There is some evidence that the suicidal behaviour that
follows suicide reporting is not merely inevitable behaviour in vulnerable
people that was moved forward in time by exposure to the media report. A
1974 study examined suicide rates in American populations
following suicide
reporting. It found that although a discernable rise in the suicide rate
occurred following media reporting,
there was no subsequent discernable trough,
indicating an overall rise in the rate.12
A commonly cited
case of a contagion effect following the reporting of the method of suicide
is that of intentional carbon monoxide
poisonings by burning charcoal in a
confined space in Hong Kong.13 Before the publicised case, no
cases of suicide by burning charcoal were reported. Jumping and hanging were
previously the most
common methods of suicide. In the two-year period
after the first publicised case there were 56 cases of suicide by charcoal
burning and 39 per cent of those cases were in the first three months. The
table below describes the findings of other similar
studies on the effects of
reporting the method of
suicide.
11 Stack, above n 7.
12 David P Phillips “The Influence of Suggestion on Suicide: Substantive and Theoretical Implications of the Werther Effect” (1974) 39 American
Sociological Review 340.
13 Wai Sau D Chung and Chi Ming Leung “Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
as a New Method of Suicide in Hong Kong” (2001)
52 Psychiat Serv
836.
Suicide Reporting 13
CHAPTER 2: The harm from reporting suicide
Studies on the effect of reporting the method of suicide on subsequent
suicidal behaviour
Year Country Method Findings
1978/79 England and
Wales14
Burning Burning was an uncommon method of suicide until an extensively
publicised politically motivated suicide in 1978. In the
following year there
were 82 suicides by that method, most involving individuals with strong
psychiatric histories. None had political
overtones apart from the index
case.
2012 Taiwan15
Charcoal burning A significant increase in suicide deaths following
a media report of a celebrity suicide. There was also a
marked increase in
suicides by the same method used by the celebrity.
1999 United
Kingdom17
Anti-freeze While the mean number of intentional anti-freeze
poisonings for
1995–1997 was around two per month, the number of such poisonings
for the month following media coverage of an inquest into
an anti-freeze
poisoning was nine. For the month following the depiction of such a poisoning
in the popular drama Casualty the number was six.
Normalising suicide
2.16
2.17
A normalising effect may occur when suicide is represented (often
inadvertently) as a reasonable or common response
to problems or a
crisis. By being presented as relatively common, a person may feel that
it is more acceptable.
Normalisation in suicide reporting can occur in
different ways. For example, an increase in the quantity of suicide
reporting or reporting on high suicide statistics may make suicide appear
to be an increasingly normal event.18 Alternatively, presenting
suicide as a consequence of particular problems, for example bullying or
relationship breakup, can lead
to other people with those problems
considering suicide as an option. Research has shown that normalisation has a
stronger
effect on vulnerable populations when the person identifies with the
deceased19 or the deceased is a celebrity.20
It
has been suggested to us that a normalisation effect may also occur if the
ethnicity of the victim is mentioned in a report.
The inadvertent result can
be that suicide is presented as a more frequent (and consequently more
normal) response within
that ethnic population. This normalisation by the
media is counterproductive to efforts to reduce suicide rates within those
populations.
Glamorising or sensationalising suicide
2.18
Similarly to normalising suicide, glamorising or sensationalising suicide may
increase the risk of a vulnerable person choosing suicide
as a way of addressing
their problems. Glamorising suicide may occur through the material selected to
report, the use of words
or photos in the report, or in the extent of
coverage of a suicide. For example, emphasising community expressions of grief
instead
of the problems faced by the person who died may give the impression
that the person
14 JR Ashton and S Donnan “Suicide by burning as an epidemic phenomenon: an analysis of 82 deaths and inquests in England and Wales in
1978-9” (1981) 11 Psychol Med 735.
15 Ying-Yeh Chen and others “The impact of media reporting of the suicide of a singer on suicide rates in Taiwan” (2012) 47 Soc Psychiatry
Psychiatr Epidemiol 215.
16 Elmar Etzersdorfer, Martin Voracek and Gernot Sonneck “A dose-response relationship between imitational suicides and newspaper distribution” (2004) 8 Arch Suicide Res 137.
17 Martin J Veysey, Robie Kamanyire and Glyn N Volans “Effects of drug overdose in television drama on presentations for self poisoning” (1999) 319 BMJ 1131.
18 Ministry of Health Suicide and the media: The reporting and portrayal of suicide in the media: A resource (September 1999) at 8.
19 Merike Sisask and Airi Varnik “Media Roles in Suicide Prevention: A Systematic Review” (2012) 9 Int J Environ Res Public Health 123 at 132.
20 Andrew TA Cheng and others “The influence of media reporting of the suicide of a celebrity on suicide rates: a population-based study” (2007)
36 Int J Epidemiol 1229.
14 Law Commission Report
2.19
who died is receiving a lot of positive attention, which may make
suicide a more attractive option. Glamorising suicide
is a particular risk
in reporting the suicide deaths of celebrities or high profile
people.21
Sensationalising suicide sometimes occurs when
reports aim to raise awareness of a perceived problem. For example, this may
happen
by presuming connections between suicides that may also be a mere
coincidence, by describing a rise in the rate of suicide within
a population as
a suicide epidemic, or by describing a location associated with suicides as a
“hot spot”.
The size of the contagion effect
2.20
2.21
We noted above that the media reporting following the suicide death of
Marilyn Monroe was thought to increase subsequent suicides
by 12 per cent.
Generally, however, the size of the effect of media reporting of suicide on
subsequent suicides is thought to
be much smaller than the effect in that
particular case.22 One American researcher has estimated that
generally the effect may be in the order of 2.5 per cent.23
However, another study found the increase in suicide rates after reports
of celebrity suicides to be 0.26 per cent.24
It is true that
the size of the effect of media reporting is significantly smaller than that
of other psychiatric and psychosocial
risk factors for suicide.25
For example, a history of mental health problems or familial suicidal
behaviour is much more strongly associated with suicide
than is media
reporting. However, all risk factors for suicide fall on a spectrum of
modifiability, with many being fixed or
very difficult to modify. In contrast
to many of the other risk factors, the risk of media reporting is
relatively easy to
modify through education of journalists and the public at
large.
The contagion effect of new media
2.22
2.23
The terms of reference for this review require us to specifically
consider the application of our recommendations for different
forms of media
such as bloggers and social media (new media).
The proliferation of
internet-based modes of communication is having an impact on suicide in
New Zealand. In summary:
. People (particularly young
people) are receiving information (including about individual
suicides) from an increasing range of sources.
.
Many of those sources are designed and structured in ways that
inhibit effective control of
their content.
. It is common for people to
discuss the details of a suicide death on social media, often in ways
that would breach the guidelines for mainstream media reporting of
suicide.26
. There is a significant level
of “convergence” between mainstream media and new
media,
with mainstream media using new media as a source of information for
its reports and conversely providing links to further
information on new
media sites.
In Chapter 5 we describe the impact of the internet in more
detail.
21 Tousignant and others, above n 9.
22 Robert D Goldney “Media and Suicide: A Cautionary View” (2001) 22 Crisis 173.
23 Stack, above n 4.
24 Thomas Niederkrotenthaler “Changes in suicide rates following media reports on celebrity suicide: a meta-analysis” (2012) 66 J Epidemiol
Community Health 1037.
25 Drew M Velting and Madelyn S Gould “Suicide contagion” in R W Maris, M M Silverman and S S Canetto (eds) Review of suicidology, 1997
(Guilford Press, New York, 1997) 96.
26 We discuss these guidelines in Chapter 5.
Suicide Reporting 15
CHAPTER 2: The harm from reporting suicide
2.24
2.25
2.26
Unfortunately we have found very few studies from New Zealand or
internationally examining whether reports on new media of individual
suicides
have a contagion effect. We consider that it cannot necessarily be assumed
that reports of suicides in new media
would have the same effect as
reports in mainstream media. People working in suicide prevention have
speculated to us that,
despite them being accessed far less frequently, reports
of suicide in mainstream media are likely to be much more authoritative
for
young people than reports in social media. They also draw a distinction
between the “one-way” communication
of mainstream media and the
“conversation-like” communication on social media. The often
rapid, multi-faceted nature
of social media may mean that the impacts of any
reports of suicide that may breach the guidelines for safe reporting of suicide
are diluted.
Even if the effect of new media is not the same as
that of mainstream media, it is still likely that certain forms of reporting
in new media may influence subsequent suicidal behaviour. For example, there
is particular concern that online memorial pages
for people who died by
suicide may inadvertently glamorise the deceased person or sensationalise the
death. Resources have been
developed in New Zealand and internationally
for the publication of “safe” memorials after a suicide
death.27 It is likely, however, that these currently reach only
those people working in suicide prevention or with young people.
From
our investigation of the evidence outlined in this chapter and in
Appendix C we have concluded that:
. The evidence is
irrefutable that some forms of reporting are strongly associated with a
risk
of further suicides. It is likely that the potential for harm extends to
reports of suicide on the internet and social media.
. There
is some evidence of a causal link between some forms of reporting
suicide and
subsequent suicide (as opposed to merely an association). However,
those proven causal links are tightly confined to specific
types of
reporting.
. There are gaps in the research. For example,
much of the research does not distinguish good
quality suicide reporting from poor quality suicide reporting. Much of the
research does not show that subsequent suicide victims
actually read the media
reports of the earlier suicide.
BEREAVED FAMILIES AND BREACHES OF PRIVACY
2.27
The grief process following a suicide death is often different from other
forms of bereavement. Studies have shown that people
bereaved by suicide
may:28
. struggle more with questions of meaning
around the death;
. show higher levels of feelings of
guilt, blame and responsibility;
. experience greater
feelings of rejection or abandonment by the person who died by
suicide,
or anger towards them;
. experience greater
social isolation and stigmatisation;
. experience
greater difficulties with family relationships, including long-term effects;
and
. have an increased risk of suicide
themselves.
27 National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (US) Lifeline Online Postvention Manual (2010); Ministry of Education Preventing and responding to suicide: Resource kit for schools (2013).
28 John R Jordan “Is Suicide Bereavement Different? A Reassessment
of the Literature” (2001) 31 Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behavior
91–102.
16 Law Commission Report
2.28
2.29
2.30
These features of the grief process following a suicide death make
the bereaved particularly vulnerable to reports of the
suicide. During our
consultations, we spoke to a number of people bereaved by suicide. A common
theme was that their grief
process was inhibited by a general lack of
understanding about suicide in society and wariness in talking about it.
Consequently
they favoured more public discussion of suicide in a general
sense as a public health issue.
However, they told us that inaccurate
reporting and breaches of privacy increased the burden of grief felt by
bereaved families.
Examples given of inaccurate reporting included when the
media speculated about and over-simplified the causes of suicide without
an
in-depth knowledge of the circumstances. We were also given examples of
breaches of privacy causing significant relationship
problems between the
surviving family members. From speaking with families it was apparent
their idea of what should
be private differed from what is generally
accepted by the media. For example, they felt that it was an invasion of
privacy to publish personal information publicly available on social media
sites. In their view, no information about the
person who died should be
published without the consent of the family and whānau.
People
bereaved by suicide sometimes wish to share their stories with the
intent of helping other people in similar situations
or of exposing poor
practice in public institutions. Some felt that the current legislative
prohibitions prevented them from speaking
openly about their own experience of
suicide. Conversely, some families had agreed to speak with the media
after a suicide,
but had later regretted it.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE CORONIAL PROCESS
2.31
2.32
In Chapter 5 we describe our research into current media practice of
reporting suicide and analyse the extent to which
that practice complies with
the statutory restrictions and guidelines for reporting suicide. In the course
of that research we
found a not insubstantial amount of reporting by
mainstream media of individual suicide deaths. In many cases the media did not
specifically call a death a suicide but said something like “the
death has been referred to the coroner”, or
“there are no
suspicious circumstances”. However, in some cases the death was
described as a suicide.
Leaving aside the question of whether describing
a death as a suicide is a breach of section 71 of the Coroners Act (we
discuss
that further in Chapter 3), we consider that significant harm is
caused to the integrity of the coronial system by such a description.
Parliament has determined that it is a coroner’s role to determine the
cause of death.29 This makes the cause of death a legal
determination. If broad public comment and discussion on the cause of death is
permitted before
a coroner has made a finding on that point, it may usurp
the role of the coroner or undermine the significance of that finding
when it
is
made.
29 Coroners Act 2006, s 4(2).
Suicide Reporting 17
CHAPTER 2: The harm from reporting suicide
2.33
2.34
Harm could possibly be caused to the administration of justice by describing
a death as a suicide before that has been determined
by a coroner. While we
must assume that a coroner is capable of ignoring any prior public discussion
of the matters he or she
is to determine, there is a risk that such public
comment may influence the evidence of witnesses to the coronial proceeding.
Public reports that a death was in fact a suicide may affect a witness’s
evidence by making that person either more confident
or less confident in their
recollection of events. We note, however, that in Beckett v TV3 Network
Services Ltd Robertson J was not persuaded that a television broadcast
prior to a coronial inquest would be likely to affect the recollection
of
witnesses to that inquest. He held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated
that “the integrity of that process might
be affected by what was
contemplated by the defendant”.30
Beckett was not
a case of suicide, but we agree the effect on witnesses is likely to be
similar. Reports that a death was in fact a suicide
are unlikely to have a
significant impact on a witness’s recollection of events at a coronial
inquest. The greater harm
in this case is to the integrity of the coronial
process.
30 Beckett v TV3 Network Services Ltd [2000] NZHC 1341; (2000) 6 HRNZ 84 (HC) at
90.
18 Law Commission Report
Chapter 3
The legislation
INTRODUCTION
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Under the Coroners Act 2006 (Coroners Act), if a death occurs in New
Zealand, there is reasonable cause to believe that
death was
self-inflicted, and a coronial inquiry into the death has not been
completed, section 71(1) prohibits the publication
of “any particular
relating to the manner in which a death occurred” without a
coroner’s authority. Even after
a coroner has found a death to be
self-inflicted, section 71(2) prohibits the publication without a
coroner’s authority
of “a particular of the death” other
than the name, address, and occupation of the deceased person and the fact
that the coroner found the death to be self-inflicted.
The only basis on
which a coroner may give authority to make public particulars of the death,
either before or after an inquiry
into the death has been completed, is that
“the making public of particulars of that kind is unlikely to be
detrimental
to public safety”.31
This provision has
proved to be problematic in practice. The terms of reference for this review
highlight two particular issues
with the interpretation of section 71. First,
which particulars of a suicide are covered by the phrase in section 71(1)
“particulars
relating to the manner in which a death occurred?” Does
that phrase preclude reporting the bare fact that the death was a
suicide? Or
does it merely preclude reporting the method of the suicide? Second, what
should a coroner consider when determining
under section 71(3) whether a
report of a detail of a suicide death is “unlikely to be detrimental to
public safety?”
The practical context giving rise to the
greatest concern is that the immediacy of interest in a death is just
after
it has occurred, yet it may be many months before the coroner makes
a finding. What can the media or social media say in the
intervening
period?
Some media organisations have taken the position that they are
not in breach of section 71(1) if they do not report the method
by which the
deceased caused their own death, but report solely the fact that the death was
self-inflicted.
At least two interpretations of section 71(1) appear
to be tenable. A broader interpretation is that reporting the bare
fact
that a death is the result or suspected result of suicide is not
permissible. A narrower interpretation is that the
prohibition extends only
to specific matters such as the method by which the deceased caused their own
death.
The historic background to the present legislation
3.7
We begin in the traditional fashion with a consideration of how section 71
of the Coroners Act came into being. The Coroners Acts
of 1846, 1858, 1867 or
1908 had no analogous provisions. Changes came with the enactment of the
Coroners Act 1951.
31 Coroners Act, s 71(3).
Suicide Reporting 19
CHAPTER 3: The legislation
United Kingdom
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
Between the New Zealand Coroners Acts of 1908 and 1951, a report under the
chairmanship of Lord Wright, one of the most respected
British Law Lords, was
presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.32 This was a
broad-based report with a mandate to inquire into the practice of coroners and
to recommend any areas for change.
Under the system then in place in the
United Kingdom there were three broad concerns:
. the
publication of suicide notes, which often contain very personal
information or
uncorroborated assertions about other people, for instance family
members;
. the risk of imitated suicides presented by
the publication of the details of suicide; and
. the
requirement for coroners to ascertain whether a person was of unsound mind at
the
time they took their own life, as historically there were two
verdicts available in cases of suicide: what is essentially
self-murder or
suicide while of unsound mind. The former was an important finding because
it led to the forfeiting of property.
On the problem of imitation the
Wright Committee said:33
It is a matter of common knowledge which none of our witnesses disputed – that a suicide in which some particular means is adopted is frequently followed by a chain of similar suicides ... witnesses of great authority took the view that the publication of details of the manner in which suicide was committed was calculated to lead to others who had a tendency to suicide to take their own lives. It was argued on the other side that publicity did no more than suggest a particular means of suicide to a person who intended to commit suicide and who was only influenced as to the means to adopt
... we consider that the true view of this matter is that there are at
any one time a number of people contemplating suicide
to whom the knowledge
of what may appear to be an attractive and painless method of ending life is
an important factor in making
up their minds to destroy
themselves.
Having noted an argument that inquests should be held
in private but rejecting that as an absolute necessity, the Wright
Committee went on:34
We have been impressed by the consensus of opinion that the present
publicity of inquests on suicides often causes very great hardship
and does a
great deal of social harm. We have the greatest reluctance to propose anything
which would restrict the freedom of the
press. To uphold that freedom is a
matter of the highest public importance and it should be jealously guarded.
It has generally
been used with admirable restraint by the newspaper
proprietors for this country. Nevertheless, in this particular matter, we
have
reached the conclusion that the publication and the press of the
proceedings at inquest on suicides should be limited
to a statement of the name
and address of the deceased and of the verdict that the deceased died by his
own hand ...
The Committee also expressed concern about the
publication of things such as witness statements and photographs
in the
press “before the inquest is held”. As it transpired nothing was
done in response to these
recommendations.
32 Home Department (UK) Report of the Departmental Committee on Coroners (Cmnd 5070, 1936) (Wright Report).
33 Report of the Department Committee on Coroners, above n 32, at 18-19.
34 Report of the Department Committee on Coroners, above n 32, at
18-19.
20 Law Commission Report
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
In 1965 the United Kingdom Home Office commissioned a second review
of the coronial system. That resulted in a 1971 Report.
This second
Committee took a different view from the Wright Report on the subject of
publicity of suicide inquests. It said:35
We think that the argument that publicity increases the number of suicides
is insufficiently supported by clear or irrefutable
evidence to justify so
controversial a step as the total prohibition of press reports.
It
rejected the idea of a discretionary provision “since the effect of this
would often be to place coroners in a most invidious
position”.
A
third review of the coronial system took place in the United
Kingdom in 2003.36 It recommended that inquests no longer be
mandatory in cases of suicide. This had the effect of substantially reducing
the number
of such inquests that would continue to be conducted in
public.
The net result of these considerations was the Wright
Report recommendation, that some statutory restriction be put on reporting
suicide, has never been adopted in the United Kingdom. The Editors’ Code
of Practice, issued by the United Kingdom Press
Complaints Commission,
stipulates that “[when] reporting suicide, care should be taken to
avoid excessive detail about
the method used”,37 but there is
no express statutory provision.
We note that recently, coronial law
in the United Kingdom has had a complete (and highly contentious)
overhaul by the
Coroners and Justices Act 2009, which came into force in
July
2013. That legislation created great public controversy because it
appeared to revive proposals for the possibility of some secret
hearings and,
on the other side, the necessity to accommodate English law to the Human
Rights Act 1988 and the European Convention
of Human Rights.
An
Australasian commentator has suggested that the new Act “has made
disappointingly little progress towards a modern,
integrated, prevention
focused coronial system for the United Kingdom” and compared the
“increasingly outmoded
system for investigating death” in the
United Kingdom, with the progressive reforms initiated in New Zealand, and
subsequently
built upon in some Australian states.38
It is not
necessary for us to comment on the wider debate here. It suffices to say
there does not appear to be anything in
the complex 2009 United Kingdom
legislation that bears on the issue we are pursuing other than to note that
the overwhelming
concern of the United Kingdom commentary and media was that
its thrust was against, rather than for, greater transparency. We
agree with
these concerns.
New Zealand
3.18
What is important for our purposes is that in New Zealand the insights of
the Wright Committee appear to have been the inspiration
for section 21 of the
New Zealand Coroners Act 1951. This provided that a coroner may direct that
no report or no further report
of the proceedings of an inquiry be
published until after the coroner’s findings. Where the coroner
found the death
was self-inflicted no report of the proceedings, without the
authority of the coroner, could be published other than the name,
address
and occupation of the deceased person; the fact that an inquest had been held;
and the fact that the coroner had found
that the death was
self-inflicted.
35 Home Office (UK) Death Certification and Coroners (Cmnd 4810, 1971) at [15.27].
36 Home Office (UK) Death Certification in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Report of a Fundamental Review (Cm 5831, 2003).
37 Press Complaints Commission Editors’ Code of Practice (January 2012).
38 Ian Freckleton “Anglo-Australian coronial law reform: the
widening gap” (2010) 17 J Law Med 471.
Suicide Reporting 21
CHAPTER 3: The legislation
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
This was a discretionary regime, but it represented a significant change
to previous practice. The provision was the subject
of some debate in
the New Zealand Parliament prior to its enactment. The then
Attorney-General referred extensively to
the Wright Report in support of the
proposed restriction on publication.39
By 1984 the
Department of Justice in New Zealand had issued a review of the
Coroners Act 1951.40 It suggested that the existing law on
the reporting of suicide “based on the recommendation of the Wright
Committee,
represents a balanced approach that satisfies both the public
interest and the need for restraint in certain cases”.
While such a
balance might allow some “potentially corrosive conjecture” to
occur, “most people will realise that
an independent judicial officer
enquiring into the matter will shortly investigate the facts and make a
finding”.
The recommendations in that Report were largely
adopted in section 29 of the Coroners Act
1988. However, there was an expansion in at least two respects: the
restrictions were made automatic rather than by order
of the coroner; and the
restrictions took effect prior to an inquest being opened.
It was
arguable that section 29 of the 1988 Act also prevented reporting the
possibility that a death was self-inflicted. Certainly
the explanatory note
to the Bill as introduced suggests it was intended to limit the scope of section
29 further.41 Clauses 29(1) and 29(2) were not debated in the House,
nor was the different wording in the two clauses.42
Further
amendments to section 29 were made in 1996. Whether it was intended to take out
the textual anomalies by using the defined
term “particular” in
both sections, or whether it was to address some particular holdings, is not
apparent to us.43
In any event, by 1998 the Government had
asked the New Zealand Law Commission to review the entire coronial system.
This Commission’s
Report was released in 2000.44 Ultimately
it led to the enactment of the current Coroners Act. That Report was
silent on the scope of the restrictions
on reporting suicide.
The enactment of the present provisions
3.25
The Bill, which would become the current Act, was introduced into
Parliament in 2004.45 It was considered by a Select Committee in
2005. The present section 71 was clause 61 in the
Bill.
39 (29 November 1951) 296 NZPD 1184.
40 Department of Justice Coroners Act 1951: A review with proposals for amendments (November 1984).
41 Coroners Bill 1987 (170-1) (explanatory note).
42 Section 29, Coroners Act 1988 “(1) If there is reasonable cause to believe that a death that occurred in New Zealand after the commencement of this Act was self-inflicted, without the authority of a Coroner no person shall publish any information relating to the manner in which the death occurred. (2) Without the authority of a coroner no person shall publish any details of a death that a coroner has found to be self-inflicted, of the circumstances of the death, or of an inquest into the death, other than the name, address, and occupation of the person concerned, and the fact that the coroner has found the death to be self-inflicted.”
43 Section 29, Coroners Act 1988, as substituted by s 4(1) Coroners Amendment Act 1996:
“(1) In this section,—[...] Particular, in relation to any death, means detail relating to the manner in which the death occurred, to the circumstances of the death, or to an inquest into the death.
(2) If - (a) There is reasonable cause to believe that a death that occurred in New Zealand after the commencement of this Act was self-inflicted; and (b) No inquest into it has been completed,—without the authority of a coroner no person shall make public any particular relating to the manner in which it occurred.”
44 Law Commission Coroners (NZLC R62, 2000).
45 Coroners Bill 2004 (228-1).
22 Law Commission Report
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.29
The Select Committee said:46
Making public of details of self-inflicted deaths
Clause 61 of the bill as introduced provides that no person may make
public specific details in cases of suspected or established
self-inflicted
death without the coroner’s authority. “Making public”
includes publishing on an Internet site
that is generally accessible to the
public. The bill provides that the coroner may authorise the making public of
particulars
of a self-inflicted death only if that is consistent with public
safety.
We considered amending the bill to permit more detail about self-inflicted
deaths to be made public, as some submitters had
suggested that greater
transparency might lead to better understanding of the issues relating to
self-inflicted death. However,
we remained concerned about the implications
for public safety and the possible consequences of such a change, and support
some
restriction continuing in the interest of public safety.
We note that family members of the deceased would be covered by the
provisions restricting making public details of a self-inflicted
death. People
who wanted to make public the details of a self-inflicted death of a family
member would have to apply to the coroner
for authorisation. We expect that,
when considering whether or not to authorise the making public of details of a
self-inflicted
death, coroners would weigh carefully the interests of family
members of the deceased and the potential risk to public safety
if particular
details were made public.
Taken as a whole, this passage suggests
that the Select Committee thought the purpose of section 71 was to
prevent publication
of the method by which the deceased took their
life, rather than the fact that the death was self-inflicted. This is
because the first
paragraph refers to the restriction being on “specific
details”; the second paragraph refers to the possibility
of
publication of “more detail”; and perhaps most distinctly, the
Committee went on to conclude that “some
restriction” is
desirable. This suggests that the restrictions do not extend so far as to
prohibit publication of the fact
that a death was self-inflicted.
The
difficulty appears to be that the Committee did not clearly consider the timing
problem; that is, restrictions that applied before
the completion of an inquest,
and afterwards. Consequently, it did not specifically consider whether a death
could be reported a
suicide or self-inflicted before the coronial inquest had
determined that.
There was much debate in Parliament leading to the
passage of the Act. The then Minister for
Courts, the Hon Rick Barker said:47
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): ... I reassure Mr Finlayson
that the Justice and Electoral Committee has got this
legislation right. I
read with interest the submissions, such as that made by the Press Council. I
draw his attention to what
I think is the most important line in that
submission: “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.” On the basis of eschewing
the research, the Press Council opts for freedom of the press.
I did some cursory investigation myself, and found every piece of
evidence to be very clear. It did not take much to research
the information
through the internet. The first thing is that copycat suicide has been
recorded over and over again. Every
piece of research showed that when a
high-profile suicide is attempted, others follow. We had the example in Hong
Kong whereby
a very unusual method was used for suicide. It had never been seen
before, and by putting it in the public arena, in a very short
period of time
it became the third most common form of suicide in that area. Every other
piece of research shows that when someone,
particularly a young person,
commits suicide, other suicides follow. The copycat
46 Coroners Bill 2004 (228-2) (select committee report) at 3.
47 (2 August 2006) 633 NZPD 4666.
Suicide Reporting 23
CHAPTER 3: The legislation
and contagion effect is documented incredibly throughout. It is beyond
doubt. So the Press Council is saying that it wants to have
the ability,
under the guise of freedom of speech, to report suicide, and that the
public’s right to know is greater
than the negatives that can befall the
general public. I am very cynical about this.
... the research shows that copycat suicide and contagion is a very real
factor. Anyone who has studied this issue will tell us that
when someone
commits suicide in an area, it sends a signal to others that suicide is an
OK thing to do. That person is the
permission-giver. We had a very good
example of that recently in a small central North Island town, where a
number of people
took their lives, one after another. Despite
Parliament’s prohibition on reporting that matter, a senior executive
of
a television programme said: “Despite what the law says, I believe
that the public has a right to know”. Although
there were legal
consequences arising out of doing it, the programme went on to display all
of the facts. That case demonstrates
the responsibility taken by the media on
this
issue.
3.30
3.31
3.32
If I could for one instant believe that the rules that were agreed to
would be honoured, I would be tempted to consider
the matter, but I can not.
The fact is that, contrary to what the media shows, the number of suicides in
New Zealand is falling.
That is the situation. The public perception is
somewhat different. The second inaccuracy in the public perception is that
youth
suicide is the main problem, but that is not the case, either. The most
common form of suicide in New Zealand is male and is aged
25 to 30 years old
and older. Those statistics will come as a surprise to people. The third
thing is that a disproportionately
high number of Maori people commit
suicide. Again, that is contrary to the public perception, because the media
have highlighted
only those that they know will maximise their traction. If the
media were able to highlight a particular youth suicide in an area,
the shock
and horror aspect of it would certainly sell even more newspapers – and we
are told that that is the benefit for
freedom of information. Well, I do
not accept that. My view is that Parliament is entitled to have a view on
these things.
It has had a view on them, and it has been very successful. The
rate of suicide in New Zealand is declining and I think that Parliament
is
taking exactly the right stance on this issue.
A few weeks later the
same Minister said:48
The media suggest that removing the restrictions on reporting details
of suicide will improve public understanding of the
issue and reduce the number
of self-inflicted deaths. The Government does not agree. An increasing body of
evidence is showing
that media reports of suicide can trigger [emulative] and
copy-cat suicides and lead to increases in both the overall number
of
suicides and the use of a particular method of suicide.
It is not
necessary for us to finally determine the scope of the restriction in section
71(1). We are satisfied that the scope of
the provision is unclear and that if
a legislative restriction continues to be justified, the scope of that
restriction should
be made much clearer. We address the question of whether a
legislative restriction continues to be justified in Chapter 6 and
the
scope of a proposed new restriction in Chapter 7.
We turn now to the
meaning of the words “unlikely to be detrimental to public
safety” in section 71(3), which
concerns the grounds upon which a
coroner may grant authority to publish the particulars of a suicide. Coroners
have told us
they would like more guidance as to what they should take into
account when making a section 71(3)
determination.
48 (24 August 2006) 633 NZPD 4865.
24 Law Commission Report
3.33
3.34
As it currently stands, the phrase is very broad and is open to
multiple interpretations. In particular it gives little guidance
as to the
strength that should be given to the evidence linking reporting suicide with
copycat behaviour. On the one hand, “public
safety” may require
that the public be warned about a particular method of suicide so that parents
or friends of a vulnerable
person may take steps to protect that person
from risk. On the other hand, the evidence of copycat suicides
suggests
that reporting on the method of suicide may have the
unintended consequence of “advertising” that method to
a vulnerable
person.
We consider that if an exemption from the statutory prohibition
continues to be required, the grounds upon which it is to be
made should be
as clear as possible about the extent to which the evidence of copycat
behaviour deriving from suicide reporting
should be taken into account. We
address this matter in Chapter
7.
Suicide Reporting 25
CHAPTER 4: Guidelines
Chapter 4
Guidelines
INTRODUCTION
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has estimated that annually there
are more than one million suicides worldwide. From any
viewpoint this
phenomenon constitutes a serious public health problem. Prevention and
control is, however, no easy matter.
Preventing suicide is multifaceted.
It includes providing optimal conditions for bringing up our children and
youth, effective
treatment of mental disorder and controlling environmental
risk factors.
As we have noted in Chapter 2, more than 80 scientific
studies worldwide have examined the association between media coverage
of
suicide and further suicidal behaviour. Inevitably there are some differences
between them but nonetheless they show respectably
consistent findings across
different types of media, different research methodologies and different
cultures and countries.
Agreement is widespread that media
depictions and reporting on stories of suicide may precipitate suicidal
behaviour
in vulnerable individuals, with such individuals particularly
susceptible to stories involving celebrity suicide and, most
importantly,
those which provide details of methods of suicide.
WHO has
stated:49
Over 50 investigations into imitative suicides have been conducted.
Systematic reviews of these studies have consistently drawn
the same
conclusion: media reporting of suicide can lead to imitative suicidal
behaviours. These reviews have also observed that
imitation is more evident
under some circumstances than others. It varies as a function of time, peaking
within the first three
days and levelling off by about two weeks, but sometimes
lasting longer. It is related to the amount and prominence of coverage,
with
repeated coverage and ‘high impact’ stories being most strongly
associated with imitative behaviours. It is accentuated
when the person
described in the story and the reader or viewer are similar in some way, or
when the person described in the
story is a celebrity and is held in high regard
by the reader or viewer. Particular subgroups in the population (e.g., young
people,
people suffering from depression) may be especially vulnerable to
engaging in imitative suicidal behaviours. Finally, and probably
most
importantly, overt description of suicide by a particular method may
lead to increases in suicidal behaviour employing
that
method.
Studies have demonstrated that media reports about suicide can
have a beneficial effect when they describe people recapturing
control over
their lives. These are sometimes called “mastery of crisis
stories”.
Utilisation of guidelines
4.6
Given these problems, media reporting guidelines have become one of
the most important and widely recognised public
health approaches to
suicide prevention. Countries with media reporting guidelines for suicide
include Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Canada,
England,
49 World Health Organization Preventing Suicide: A resource for media
professionals (2008) at 6.
26 Law Commission Report
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland,
United Kingdom and the United States of America.
It is easy to get lost
in the details, but it is important to see where the similarities and the
broad thrust of these guidelines
lie. We set out as an example the
“Quick Reference for Media Professionals” issued by
WHO:50
. Take the opportunity to educate the
public about suicide.
. Avoid language which
sensationalises or normalises suicide, or presents it as a solution
to
problems.
. Avoid prominent placement and
undue repetition of stories about suicide.
. Avoid
explicit descriptions of the method used in a completed or attempted
suicide.
. Avoid providing detailed information about
the site of a completed or attempted suicide.
. Word
headlines carefully.
. Exercise caution in using
photographs or video footage.
. Take particular care in
reporting celebrity suicides.
. Show due consideration
for people bereaved by suicide.
. Provide information
about where to seek help.
. Recognise that media
professionals themselves may be affected by stories about
suicide.
An initiative widely recognised for its success is
the Mindframe national media initiative funded by the Commonwealth
Government of Australia. Mindframe’s object is to encourage
responsible, accurate and sensitive media representation of mental illness
and suicide.51 That programme is very proactive in building
relationships and fostering influence with media, with the aim of encouraging
responsible,
accurate and sensitive reporting by media of mental illness and
suicide. Its activities include undertaking large-scale media
monitoring
projects, advising media professionals as they prepare stories on suicide,
supporting the suicide prevention sector
in their work with the media,
and voicing community feedback on how the media are responding to
suicide.
Under the auspices of Mindframe, the National Media
and Mental Health Group, made up of representatives of peak media
bodies, suicide and mental
health organisations and the Australian
Government, first published the guidelines Reporting Suicide and Mental
Illness in
2002.52 These guidelines have stood out from
others around the world, both because of the collaborative way in which
they were developed
and the process by which they were promoted to the media.
Mindframe staff have an ongoing programme of supporting media
organisations in using the guidelines, including face-to-face briefings,
drop-in
visits, offering ad hoc advice, distributing hard and soft copies
of the resource and supporting materials, and providing
ongoing follow
up.53
In addition, Mindframe has conducted evaluations
of the effectiveness of the guidelines. These evaluations, known as The
Media Monitoring Project collected and analysed the portrayal of
suicide by mainstream media across a 12-month period in the year before the
introduction
of
50 World Health Organization, above n 49, at 3.
51 Mindframe “Mindframe: National Media Initiative” <www.mindframe-media.info>.
52 Mindframe Reporting Suicide and Mental Illness: a Mindframe Resource for Media Professionals (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002).
53 Jane E Pirkis and others The Media Monitoring Project: Changes in media reporting of suicide and mental health and illness in Australia
(Department of Health and Ageing (Australia), 2008).
Suicide Reporting 27
CHAPTER 4: Guidelines
the guidelines, and then again four years later. It found that the
nature and quality of suicide reporting had improved across
newspapers,
television and radio between the two periods.
New Zealand
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
The Ministry of Health first published guidelines to assist the media in
1998. The media were consulted but these guidelines had
a rocky evolution. The
media subsequently strongly criticised the consultation process. Consequently,
the guidelines were reviewed
and renamed a “resource” in
1999.54 These 1999 guidelines incorporated more facts, useful
contacts and information on suicide and suicide prevention.
Concerns
continued to be expressed by the Chief Coroner and others, and some
suicides occurred that were widely publicised.
As a result, the Prime
Minister established a Ministerial Committee to review the policy underlying
the statutory restrictions
on reporting suicide and the 1999 guidelines. That
Committee came to the conclusion that the evidence underlying the statutory
restrictions and the guidelines was still valid, but the guidelines were
outdated. In particular the guidelines did not
account for social media.
The Committee recommended a review of the guidelines.55
The
then Associate Minister of Health Hon Peter Dunne convened a Roundtable
meeting of media and academics to try to have
the guidelines redrafted. The
composition of that committee was itself somewhat controversial. The
Roundtable drafted a set of
guidelines (which could perhaps be said to be
more inclined towards media interests) and consulted on it. Some suicide
prevention
experts voiced strong criticism.
The Ministry of Health
then drafted an alternative version. That also could not achieve a
consensus of support. This left
the Roundtable in the position of having to
decide which version to support. It decided to proceed with its original
version,
which is the 2011 version currently appearing on the Ministry of
Health website.56 That version does not carry the Ministry
of Health logo. It states that it was adopted by the Media Freedom Committee
and
the Newspaper Publishers Association.
There is documented evidence
that journalists generally ignored the 1999 guidelines, preferring to be guided
by what is considered
newsworthy, and relying on the in-house practices of
their newsrooms and judgement of more senior colleagues.57 It
has been suggested anecdotally that despite the media having a greater sense of
ownership of the 2011 guidelines, they are also
being ignored. It has to be
said that this is a far from satisfactory position. The net result is that
to the extent that
guidelines exist in New Zealand, they represent unfinished
business and do not enjoy widespread support.
The reasons for the
apparent ineffectiveness of voluntary guidelines in New Zealand have not been
systematically studied. It appears
to us that there are a number of
contributing factors:
. In particular, the media object to
the statutory restrictions as being a fetter on their right
to freedom of expression and an attack on the quasi-constitutional
role of the media as watchdog. That negative attitude
to the
statutory restrictions may have hindered the
54 Ministry of Health Suicide and the media: The reporting and portrayal of suicide in the media: A resource (September 1999).
55 Ministerial Committee on Suicide Prevention Report to the Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key: Review of the restrictions on the media reporting of suicide (November 2010) at [37].
56 Media Roundtable Reporting Suicide: A Resource for the Media (December 2011).
57 Jim Tully and Nadia Elsaka Suicide and the Media: A study of the
media response to suicide and the media: The Reporting and Portrayal of
suicide in the Media: a portrayal (Ministry of Health, 2004); Sunny C Collings
and Christopher G
Kemp “Death knocks, professional practice, and the
public good: the media experience of suicide reporting in New Zealand”
(2010) 71 Soc Sci Med 244.
28 Law Commission Report
development of a mature and collaborative culture for reporting suicide in New Zealand by making consensus more difficult to achieve.
. Interviews of journalists by researchers demonstrated that the guidelines tended to be
conflated with the legislative prohibition.58 It may be that the media’s negative attitude to the statutory restrictions has also coloured the reputation of the guidelines so that they are perceived as being more restrictive than they really are.
. It was also apparent that among many who suggested to us the media have no role in
reporting suicide, including some mental health professionals, there was often a lack of understanding of both the role of the media and the practical realities of media organisations. In our view, an understanding of both matters is a necessary ingredient for any collaborative approach to reporting suicide.
. It appears that while the development of each of the sets of guidelines involved a great deal
of time and effort, an ongoing strategy was lacking for their
dissemination and promotion. While the Mental Health Foundation
undertakes
some monitoring of suicide reporting and is available by telephone to support
journalists in this regard (as is described
in the following chapter), that
service is not funded to do more than a minimal
job.
58 Collings and Kemp, above n 57, at 246.
Suicide Reporting 29
CHAPTER 5: Current media practice of reporting suicide in
New Zealand
Chapter 5
Current media practice of reporting suicide in New
Zealand
INTRODUCTION
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
In the preceding chapters we described the evidence of risk from
some forms of reporting suicide, and the methods by
which New Zealand has
sought to mitigate that risk – namely by direct legislative
restrictions and by voluntary guidelines
and educational material.
The
standards and accountabilities of New Zealand’s mainstream media were
addressed in depth in the Law Commission’s
2012 Ministerial Briefing
on the adequacy of the regulatory environment for media in the digital
age.59 In this chapter we are concerned with a much narrower
question: to what extent does current media practice in reporting suicide
comply with the statutory requirements, the applicable media guidelines,
and with the underlying policy objectives?
Given the time and
resources available to us we are not in a position to provide a definitive
answer to this question. The
conclusions we have reached are based on a small
number of our own quantitative and qualitative studies, supplemented by
in-depth
analysis of media coverage of a sample of recent suicides. We have
also drawn on the feedback provided by key stake holders
in the course of
consultation.
The purpose of this exercise is not to critique the
news media’s performance, but to provide a reasonably objective
assessment of the efficacy of the existing combination of statutory
restrictions and media guidelines, and inform our reform
proposals. This
assessment will also help provide a benchmark against which to monitor media
practice under any new regime
introduced by Parliament in the wake of this
review.
THE EXTENT OF SUICIDE REPORTING BY THE MEDIA
5.5
5.6
Nothing in the Coroners Act 2006 (Coroners Act) prevents the media,
or any person, from discussing suicide. Despite
this, the current
restrictions on reporting the particulars of a suspected suicide before a
coroner has determined the cause
of death are sometimes blamed for creating a
“cloak of silence” around suicide in this
country.60
For example, in a submission, the Media Freedom
Committee, which represents New Zealand’s major broadcast and print
media,
stated that society was on “dangerous ground when it gags its
members from speaking out about issues of public concern”,
and
furthermore that it could be argued that the current “prohibition on all
reporting is inhibiting the lowering of the
suicide
rate”.61
59 Law Commission Harmful Digital Communications: The adequacy of current sanctions and remedies (NZLC, 2012).
60 Letter from Tim Murphy (Chairman of the Media Freedom Committee) to the Law Commission (24 October 2013).
61 Letter from Tim Murphy (Chairman of the Media Freedom Committee) to
Pam Southey (Ministry of Justice) (7 June 2013).
30 Law Commission Report
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
However, in our view the evidence does not support the assertion that there
is a cloak of silence around suicide in New Zealand.
On the contrary,
suicide – both as a general topic and in relation to specific
instances – consistently features
on the news media’s
agenda.
For example, the Mental Health Foundation undertakes daily
monitoring of all mainstream media suicide reporting as part of
its Suicide
Prevention Information New Zealand service provided under contract to the
Ministry of Health. It reports that
on average between 50 and
100
suicide-related items are published by mainstream media in New Zealand
each week.62
When a particularly newsworthy death occurs it will often receive blanket
coverage across all media channels: for example, in
the two weeks after the
death of an Auckland private school student, the Mental Health Foundation
recorded more than 100
unique items reporting on the
event.63
A simple Google search of mainstream media coverage
of suicide over a month between August and September 2013 conducted by the
Commission found 104 factual news stories relating to suicide in New
Zealand. Analysis of the content of these stories showed
that:
.
Sixteen of these focused on the personal experience of those whose
lives had been personally
affected by suicide.
. A further nine had a
personal focus but also traversed policy issues.
.
Five dealt with coronial reports or findings.
.
Sixty-nine dealt with issues relating to suicide prevention or
policies.
Our findings are consistent with those of a major
study into how the New Zealand media report suicide, commissioned
by the
Ministry of Health and published in 2010 (the 2010 Te Pou Report).64
That study replicated the design of the Australian Media
Monitoring Project undertaken in 2000/200165 and repeated
in 2006/2007,66 but modified it for New Zealand conditions.
The researchers surveyed mainstream news media for a 12-month period in 2008
and 2009 and found in that time 3,483 factual media items relating to suicide
were published in New Zealand.67 Newspaper items and internet items
made up 50 per cent and 40 per cent of the sample, respectively. Researchers
coded each item according
to its primary focus or angle and found that across
all media (internet, radio, television, print) by far the two largest
categories
of stories focused on either an individual’s completed
suicide or on issues such as suicide prevention or euthanasia.
Numerically the extent of coverage was very close to the figures obtained
in a similar research project in Australia, where
there are no statutory
constraints on suicide
reporting.68
62 Consultation conversation with Sophia Graham (Senior Communications Officer at the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand) with the
Law Commission (26 September 2013).
63 Emails from Sophia Graham (Senior Communications Officer at the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand) to the Law Commission regarding media monitoring of suicide reporting (1–3 October 2013).
64 Brian McKenna and others Reporting of Suicide in New Zealand Media: Content and Case Study Analysis (Te Pou o Te Whakaaro Nui, June
2010). The findings of this study are also presented in the following article: Katey Thom and others “Reporting of suicide by the New Zealand media” (2012) 33 Crisis 199.
65 Jane E Pirkis and others The Media Monitoring Project: A baseline description of how the Australian media report and portray suicide and mental health and illness (Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care (Australia), 2002).
66 Jane E Pirkis and others, above n 53.
67 The news items were obtained by monitoring 119 metropolitan, suburban and regional newspapers, five national radio networks, five paid and free-to-air television stations and 35 internet sites, including all major newspaper websites and a number of independent news websites.
68 Thom and others, above n 64, at 204.
Suicide Reporting 31
CHAPTER 5: Current media practice of reporting suicide in
New Zealand
The nature and quality of reporting
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
As well as undertaking a quantitative analysis of the 3,483 suicide-related
stories published over the 12-month period, the 2010 Te
Pou Report also
undertook a qualitative analysis of a random sample of 10 per cent of the items,
assessing them for compliance with
the Ministry of Health’s
1999
guidelines. The study did not evaluate compliance with the Coroners
Act.
Researchers coded the random sample of stories according to whether
or not they followed the
1999 guidelines – for example, in respect of:
. the
use of appropriate language;
. the presentation of the
story including prominence, headlines and the use of visual
material;
. any description of the method of suicide;
and
. the extent to which the item as a whole
tended to sensationalise, glamorise or normalise
suicide, or perpetuate myths about or oversimplify its causes.
Based
on their assessment of the sample, the researchers concluded that the
media reporting of suicide during the 12-month
period in question
“mostly adhered to the Ministry of Health guidelines”.69
Specifically, the study found that:70
. Most
items did not portray suicide in an inappropriate manner.
.
Few items were reported in such a way as to normalise
suicide.
. Detailed discussion on the method of
suicide was not reported often.
.
“Surprisingly” few items referenced the fact that a
person who completed suicide was a
celebrity.
. Most items did not use
inappropriate language, were not located inappropriately, did not
use suicide in the headline and did not include inappropriate footage of
the suicide scene or methods.
However, researchers did conclude there
was room for improvement. Stories often failed to avoid simplistic
explanations of
suicide, or to adequately contextualise suicidal behaviour or
explain the complex psycho-social factors that place individuals
at risk, or
the triggers that can lead them to complete suicide. In particular they
noted “the causative link between
mental health or addiction and
suicidal behaviour was not well developed in many
items”.71
The study also highlighted problems with
using the 1999 guidelines as a quality measure and pointed out
significant
issues with both the acceptance and practical application of
the Ministry’s guidelines in a fast moving and increasingly
complex news
environment:72
Our quality analysis does not tell us anything about whether the
journalists actually use the guidelines in the construction of
their articles.
Existing research indicates that they are highly resistant to doing so, with
many journalists reporting not even
being aware of their existence ...
Further, not following the guidelines is not necessarily indicative of
“bad” quality
reporting. Some of the quality indicators devised
from these guidelines are contentious in terms of whether the indicator equates
with “good” or “bad” quality. (Citations
omitted).
69 Thom and others, above n 64, at 204.
70 Brian McKenna and others, above n 64, at 68.
71 Brian McKenna and others, above n 64, at 68.
72 Thom and others, above n 64, at 205.
32 Law Commission Report
Shifting ground
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
In the five years since this research was conducted a number of
significant changes have occurred in the reporting environment.
These
include:
. the Chief Coroner’s repeated calls
for a more open reporting environment, including
encouraging fellow coroners to:73
... think seriously about whether you can go beyond the bare bones of
name, address and occupation so people can understand what
really went on
– think about it each time, don't just instinctively restrict, just
because that's the way you have always
done it in the past.
.
the adoption in 2011 by the Media Freedom Committee and the
Newspaper Publishers’
Association of significantly revised and simplified guidelines for reporting
suicide, developed by a Roundtable meeting convened
by Hon Peter Dunne, then
Associate Minister of Health;74
. increasing media
and political focus on bullying (including cyberbullying), alcohol and
drug
abuse, depression and dysfunctional relationships as factors contributing
to youth suicide rates;
. ongoing organisational and
structural change across all media sectors in response to the
substantial change brought about by technology and shifting media
consumption habits;75 and
.
exponential increases in the use of social media and mobile
communication technology
across all sectors of the population, but in particular within the younger
demographic.
Apart from the monthly media monitoring undertaken by the
Mental Health Foundation and informal monitoring by the Ministry of
Justice
on behalf of the Chief Coroner, we are not aware of any systematic assessment
of how these changes are impacting on
the media’s approach to
reporting suicide.
However, based on our own limited research and views
expressed during consultation, it seems clear that the Chief
Coroner’s
stance, and its endorsement by some senior politicians
and media76 has resulted in a more liberal reporting environment,
not least because it has resulted in some coroners adopting a more proactive
approach in releasing and commenting on their
findings.77
It is also clear from academic research that
the entertainment sector, new media, and mobile communication technology
are
adding new layers of complexity to the challenge of controlling or
influencing how and when information about suicide is communicated,
both
publicly and within affected communities.
In 2012 researchers
conducted interviews with 71 young people aged 13 to 25 who were
engaged with clinical services because
of recent intentional self-harm
behaviour, to determine the influence of media on their suicidal
behaviour.78 This study focused on both negative and positive
effects of a wide range of media (including music, music videos, the
internet,
books,
73 “Coroner calls for more openness of suicide” Timaru Herald (online ed, Timaru, 16 June 2012); “Minister backs Coroner on suicide debate”
New Zealand Herald (online ed, Auckland, 13 August 2010).
74 The development of these guidelines is described in Chapter 4.
75 Merja Myllylahti JMAD New Zealand Media Ownership Report 2013 (AUT, November 2013). These changes have resulted in large cuts to journalistic jobs.
76 “Minister backs Coroner on suicide debate” above n 73; Kate Chapman “Key favours loosening suicide reporting rules (29 August 2011)
77 Victoria Robinson “Coroner: Teen felt suicide was ‘only solution’” (30 May 2012) Stuff <www.stuff.co.nz>; Matthew Backhouse and Rebecca
Quilliam “Greg King suffered ‘massive breakdown’ - coroner” New Zealand Herald (online ed, Auckland, 17 October 2013).
78 SC Collings and others Media influences on suicidal behaviour: An interview study of young people in New Zealand (Te Pou o Te Whakaaro Nui,
2011).
Suicide Reporting 33
CHAPTER 5: Current media practice of reporting suicide in
New Zealand
5.21
5.22
5.23
television, movies, newspapers, magazines, cell phones and social media)
on suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviour. By considering
this broad
range of media the study was able to provide a nuanced and multi-layered
account of the cultural and social
soup in which this cohort of
vulnerable young people is growing up. Some of the insights in the study
challenge conventional
thinking about the extent of traditional news
media’s impact on young people with respect to suicide. For example,
the
most common way in which the male respondents were first introduced to
the concepts of suicide and self-harm was via school
or teachers. Similarly,
fictional television programmes, music, music videos, movies and the
internet were the most common
sources of exposure to portrayals of suicidal
behaviour. The study concluded, amongst other things, that best practice in
the
treatment of suicide needs to be adopted not just by the news media, but
also by those creating entertainment content for media.
In another
New Zealand study published in 2012, investigators undertook a
forensic examination of eight suicides
that were linked either temporally,
geographically or through some other interpersonal connection.79
Among the key issues they explored was whether and in what ways the use
of modern communication technology such as texting
and social media had
impacted on these events. The study found that several of the deaths were
linked by social media, particularly
by memorial sites set up for earlier
suicide cases, and by the use of mobile phones. The researchers concluded
that:80
In view of other evidence linking publicity and social modeling to
suicide contagion ... it appeared likely that these electronic
communications
were increasing the risk of suicide contagion among young people. The rapid
spread of information and rumor
throughout the community was facilitated
by these technologies. This led to increased awareness of the suicide cluster
throughout
the community, inaccurate information about numbers and
methods, and heightened anxiety. This has important implications
because
the perception of suicide clustering in itself is thought to increase the
risk of contagion. (Citations omitted).
The mainstream media are
naturally alert to the anomalies created by the new communications environment
and in particular the perceived
absence of an even playing field when it
comes to the application of statutory restrictions in suicide reporting. The
Media
Freedom Committee has expressed the problem:81
... while the responsible media in New Zealand is effectively gagged,
others are not. We have argued previously that the law
is unfairly
restrictive in responsible reporting when there is nothing to stop any
other party using social media to publish
all sorts of details about a suicide
and no penalties can reach them.
As a matter of law it is incorrect to
state that no penalties can reach ordinary citizens who use blogs or
social media to
disseminate information about a particular suicide. The
current statutory prohibitions apply to all citizens, not just reports
by
mainstream media. However, to the best of our knowledge no media organisation
or any individual has ever been prosecuted for
breaching the publishing
provisions in the Coroners Act.
Case studies
5.24
In the lead up to and in the course of this review, a number of
suicides attracted strong media attention because of
the characteristics of the
individual who died or the circumstances surrounding the case (including for
example, multiple suicides
within a small community or the suicide of members
of the same school communities).
79 Lindsay Robertson and others “An Adolescent Suicide Cluster and the Possible Role of Electronic Communication Technology” (2012) 33
Crisis 239.
80 Robertson and others, above n 79, at 243.
81 Letter from Tim Murphy, above n 61.
34 Law Commission Report
5.25
5.26
5.27
Although not resourced to undertake a systematic review of how these
deaths were reported, the Commission monitored media coverage
of a number of
cases in both mainstream and social media. We also interviewed a range of
people affected by the deaths or
involved in suicide prevention in the
communities affected. Among those interviewed were representatives of
families who
had lost children through suicide in Kawerau and representatives
of families who had been subjected to intense media pressure
after the
death of a high profile relative. The purpose of these inquiries was to hear
first-hand the impact of media coverage
on those affected by suicide.
We
also thought it important to understand how the dissemination of
information about these suicides was occurring within
the affected peer
groups and communities, and also how interactive media (including Twitter
and Facebook) was influencing
mainstream media coverage.
To this
end we selected six case studies, all of which were considered
“newsworthy” for different reasons
(including one involving the
deaths of five young people from the same community over a short period)
and undertook a
qualitative analysis of how they had been presented to the
public.82 In total, 83 separate articles were assessed alongside
related content on social media. The key issues examined were:
.
compliance with the Coroners Act;
.
compliance with the 1999 guidelines for reporting
suicide;
. sensitivity to bereaved families in
reporting; and
. extent and impact of new media
coverage.
Compliance with the Coroners Act
5.28
5.29
Of the news items reviewed, nearly a third (24/83) did not comply
with section 71 of the Coroners Act or with coroners’
rulings in
respect of publication. Analysis suggests that the provisions were most
likely to be breached in circumstances
where:
. the
individual or the family was newsworthy in their own right;
.
the family sought out media coverage; or
.
the death was associated with alleged service failures of public
institutions.
Analysis also revealed that approximately 25 per
cent of the news items expressly stated that the death was a suicide before
the coroner had ruled it such and even when it was not baldly stated it was
almost always either directly or indirectly implied.
Indeed, as the media have
often pointed out in their submissions, simply reporting that a death
“is not considered suspicious”
or has been “referred to the
coroner” has become code for suspected suicide.
Compliance with the 1999 guidelines
5.30
An assessment for compliance with the 1999 guidelines83 for
reporting suicide revealed similar findings to the 2010 Te Pou Report: by
and large the items avoided inappropriate
language, sensational treatment,
or explicit details of the manner of death. Again, the exceptions tended to
involve the suspected
suicides of high profile individuals or suicides
that were considered particularly newsworthy for circumstantial
reasons.
82 For privacy reasons we have decided not to name the individuals in our case studies.
83 Ministry of Health Suicide and the media: The reporting and
portrayal of suicide in the media: A resource (September 1999) at 8.
Suicide Reporting 35
CHAPTER 5: Current media practice of reporting suicide in
New Zealand
5.31
It was also significant that on a number of occasions stories that breached one or more of the
1999 guidelines – including, for example, describing the method of
death – were directly drawn from coroners’
reports that had been
released for publication. Sometimes the findings were also couched in language
or described the circumstances
of the suicides in relatively simplistic ways
that could be interpreted as perpetuating suicide myths. For example, a
media
report of one coronial finding was headlined: “Coroner: Teen
felt suicide was ‘only solution’”.84
Sensitivity to bereaved families
5.32
Assessing the extent to which the news media had shown sensitivity to
families and respected their privacy was difficult without
knowing the
circumstances that led the bereaved to be interviewed. In a number of
cases it was clear family members
had actively sought media coverage,
often to air grievances about alleged third party failures leading up
to the
death. In other cases we were made aware that families who had
specifically requested privacy had been subjected to intense
media pressure,
including reporters arriving at private residences and telephoning the
family home.
New media/social media
5.33
5.34
5.35
The other striking, if unsurprising, feature of the case studies was the
extent to which accounts and discussion of the deaths
in social media ran
parallel to, and often intersected with, “official” accounts in
mainstream media. In some
instances, bereaved family members or
friends published their own accounts of the circumstances of the death or
established
memorial pages on social networking sites. On at least one
occasion, news of the death was broken on Twitter.
Mainstream
media reports of a death would frequently draw on content available on
social media, including hyperlinking to
memorial pages or other social media
content. Conversely, mainstream reports of the deaths would be linked or
reproduced in social
media discussion of a death.
This interdependence
between new and traditional media illustrates the difficulty of attempting to
use legislative means to control
the dissemination of information. It also
highlights the fact that even when mainstream media adhere to the legal
constraints
and reporting guidelines in their official accounts, the public
is increasingly reading this content against a backdrop
of speculation,
rumour and sometimes graphic detail gleaned from a wide variety of
alternative sources.
CONCLUSION
5.36
We are not in a position to definitively establish whether the current
legal prohibitions and voluntary guidelines are meeting
their objectives.
However, based on the few academic studies, our own research, and the
expert opinions of those with whom
we have consulted, we have concluded
that while the mainstream media complies reasonably well with the suicide
reporting guidelines,
and in particular refrains from publishing the means by
which a person has taken their life, they frequently breach (directly
or
by implication) section 71 of the Coroners Act. Social media appears to run
unchecked.
84 Victoria Robinson “Coroner: Teen felt suicide was ‘only
solution’” (30 May 2012) <www.stuff.co.nz>.
36 Law Commission Report
Chapter 6
The justifications for reform
6.1
6.2
Having described in the preceding chapters the current context in
New Zealand for suicide reporting and the evidence for
the harm that may
arise, we now turn to the following questions:
. Is there a
case for reforming the existing provisions?
. If so,
what should replace the existing provisions?
. Is a
legislative restriction required?
. If so, what should
be the scope of that legislative restriction?
. If a
new legislative provision is recommended, is it a reasonable limitation on
freedom of
expression?
In this chapter, we will address the case for reform
and, if reform is justified, the question of whether a legislative
restriction is required. In Chapters 7 and 8, we will address the
scope of any legislative restriction, and whether or
not the recommended
legislative provision is a reasonable limitation on freedom of
expression. In the final chapter we
describe our recommendations for a
new set of standards for reporting suicide.
THE CASE FOR REFORM
6.3
We have concluded that the restrictions on reporting suicide in sections 71
to 73 of the Coroners Act 2006 (Coroners Act) are
not working well to
achieve the policy goals and should be reformed for the following
reasons.
The scope of the current provisions is not clear
6.4
In Chapter 3 we described the current provisions of the Coroners Act that
restrict the reporting of suicide, and the problems in
determining exactly what
details of a suicide death are prohibited from being published by those
sections. We concluded that
the scope of the restrictions is not clear. We
consider that if a legislative restriction on reporting suicide continues to
be
included in the statute, its scope should be made clearer than the current
restriction – both in relation to which details
of the suicide death
may be reported, and to whether the death could in fact be described as a
suicide. In addition, if the
legislation provides for an exemption from
that restriction, the weight that should be given to the competing interests
should
be clearer than it is in the current provisions.
The provisions are not being complied with
6.5
In Chapter 5 we examined the extent to which media practice complies
with the statutory restrictions and the guidelines.
We concluded that there
was a significant amount of reporting on suicide in mainstream media. While
reporting in mainstream
media complies reasonably well with the
requirements of the suicide reporting guidelines, and usually refrains
from
reporting the method of a suicide death, it frequently breaches the
requirements of section
71 either directly or indirectly. We also found
that accounts and discussion of suicide deaths in social media often
run
parallel to reports in mainstream media. There is a
significant
Suicide Reporting 37
CHAPTER 6: The justifications for reform
convergence between the two, with social media referring and providing links to mainstream reports, and vice versa.
IS A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS REQUIRED FOR RESTRICTING SUICIDE
REPORTING?
6.6
Having concluded that change is required, we must consider
whether a new statutory restriction is required, or
whether the policy goals
can be achieved by a non-legislative means. We have concluded that while a
set of guidelines outside
the legislative framework is the most appropriate
method of achieving the goal of low-risk reporting on suicide for the
most
part, strong arguments remain for limited, well-defined statutory
restrictions, as set out below.
The harm from reporting suicide
6.7
6.8
There is clear evidence that reports of the method of a suicide death
run a substantial risk of resulting in subsequent suicidal
behaviour in
already vulnerable people. In Chapter 2 and Appendix C we summarised findings
from a large number of scientific
studies and systematic reviews of the
evidence of a copycat effect. We identified that the evidence of harm
from reporting
the method of suicide was particularly strong, but the
evidence of harm from other aspects of suicide reporting (such as
normalising suicide, glorifying the suicide, sensational coverage or the
prominence of the coverage) was significant but less
strong.
We also
described in Chapter 2 the interests of the coronial process in undertaking
its task of determining the cause of the death.
We concluded that it is
important that the coroner’s role in determining whether a death was in
fact a suicide is not undermined
by previous speculation in the media.
Guidelines have been ineffective to date
6.9
6.10
6.11
In Chapter 4 we described the attempts that have been made in New
Zealand to implement voluntary guidelines for reporting
suicide by the
mainstream media. We concluded that although mainstream media practice is
reasonably consistent with the
guidelines, the guidelines have not been widely
used by those media.
In Chapter 9 we describe why we consider that
under our recommendations the context for a new collaborative effort for
guidelines
is likely to be improved. We also describe other measures for
ensuring the successful implementation of new guidelines. Despite
the prospect
of that new context, it must be conceded that the success of a new set of
guidelines remains uncertain, depending
as it does upon numerous factors
including leadership and funding.
Given that uncertainty, we consider
the statute should restrict those aspects of suicide reporting for which there
is very strong
evidence of the potential for harm – that is,
reporting of the method of suicide and that a death is in fact a
suicide.
Guidelines are less likely to be effective in new
media
6.12
In addition to the arguments above, statutory prohibitions on reporting the
method of suicide and the fact that the death is a suicide
will send a strong
message beyond mainstream media to the public at large that significant harm
may ensue from publicly reporting
those two limited aspects of a suicide
death. Even if a new set of guidelines can be successfully implemented for
the mainstream
media, the messages from those guidelines are not likely
to reach the public at large, who may be discussing the details
of suicide
deaths publicly via blogs or social media. Clearly defined prohibitions in the
statute that are enforced by police from
time to time will help to curb risky
behaviour in new media.
38 Law Commission Report
Chapter 7
The scope of the proposed statutory restriction
7.1
7.2
We described in the preceding chapters why the current statutory
restrictions should be amended and we argued that
a limited and clearly
defined restriction on reporting the method of suicide is required.
In
this chapter we describe the scope of our proposed statutory restrictions, the
circumstances in which exemptions may be justified,
and the method by
which the restrictions should be enforced.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1 Section 71 of the Coroners Act 2006 should be repealed and replaced by provisions to the following effect:
. Unless the Chief Coroner has granted an exemption, no person may directly or indirectly
make public the method of death.
. Unless the Chief Coroner has granted an exemption or has made a finding that a death
is a suicide, no person may make public a description of a death that
describes it as a suicide.
R2 The recommended statutory restrictions should apply if a death
occurs in New Zealand after the commencement of the restriction
and there is
reasonable cause to believe the death was self-inflicted.
R3 The recommended statutory restrictions should not apply to the
Independent Police Conduct Authority or to the Police Commissioner
to the same
extent that section 72 of the Coroners Act 2006 excludes them from the current
statutory restrictions in section 71.
R4 In relation to the recommended statutory restriction, “make public” should have the same meaning as currently in section 73, that is:
make public means publish by means of—
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
broadcasting (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1989); or a
newspaper (within the meaning of the Defamation Act 1992);
or
a book,
journal, magazine, newsletter, or other similar document; or a sound or visual
recording; or
an internet site that is generally accessible to the public,
or some other similar electronic
means.
Suicide Reporting 39
CHAPTER 7: The scope of the proposed statutory restriction
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
“Method of death” should include the site of the death where
a description of the site is suggestive of the method.
The Act should
state that nothing in the restriction in R1 above prevents a person from
stating that a death is a suspected
suicide.
The Act should provide
that any person may apply to the Chief Coroner for an exemption from the
restrictions in R1.
The Act should provide that the Chief Coroner must
not grant an exemption unless satisfied that the circumstances are such that
any risk of copycat suicidal behaviour from the making public of the method of
the death or from describing the death as a suicide,
as the case may be, is
small and is outweighed by other matters in the public interest.
The Act
should provide that, in making that determination, the Chief Coroner may
be assisted by an expert panel comprising
suicide prevention experts and
media experts. For that purpose, the Ministry of Health should constitute
a panel of
not more than three people. Their fees and expenses should
be met under the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations
1974 or
similar.
To ensure that an application for an exemption is dealt
with speedily, the statute should:
. provide that
the Chief Coroner must, so far as is practicable, give priority to
any
application for an exemption; and
. provide
that the Chief Coroner may deal with an application by way of a telephone
or
video conference link-up, email or fax, but must keep a record of any
determination, with short reasons.
For the purposes of these
provisions, the “Chief Coroner” should include the Deputy Chief
Coroner when the Chief Coroner is unavailable.
Section 75 of the
Coroners Act 2006, which provides a right to apply to the High Court for a
review, should be amended to
apply to an applicant for an
exemption from the recommended statutory restrictions. The decision of the
High Court
should be final. There should be no further review or
appeal.
There should be no ability to apply for judicial review of the
exemption decision under the
Judicature Amendment Act 1972.
Section 139 of the Coroners Act
2006 should be amended to apply to the recommended restrictions in R1. In
respect of breaches
of those restrictions:
. The maximum fine should
be $20,000 for a body corporate or $5,000 in any other case.
.
The offence does not apply to a person who hosts material
on websites or other
electronic retrieval systems that can be accessed by a user unless the
specific information has been placed or entered on the site
or system by that
person.
40 Law Commission Report
DISCUSSION
Which deaths should the restriction apply to?
7.3
7.4
The proposed provision should continue to apply in the same situation as the
current provision in section 71(1) of the Coroners
Act 2006 (Coroners Act),
that is, to self-inflicted deaths. “Self- inflicted deaths” is
used rather than “deaths
by suicide” because a determination
that a death is a suicide requires an examination as to whether the deceased
person
intended to die. That is obviously difficult to determine with
certainty in the immediate aftermath of a death and is better
left to the
determination of a coroner.
The provision must continue to apply to
the same deaths as apply under the Coroners Act generally. This means
that the
restriction on reporting the method of suicide will not generally
apply to deaths that occur overseas. We have investigated whether
the
restriction should extend to overseas deaths on the basis that the harm
from reporting in New Zealand the method of
overseas suicide deaths is
likely to be similar to the harm from reporting New Zealand deaths. However,
we have concluded
that the benefit of extending the statutory restriction in
that way is defeated by the easy access of New Zealanders to reports
of
overseas suicides via the internet. Anyone in New Zealand reporting an
overseas suicide death should, however, have regard
to the guidelines in
place for reporting suicide. Those guidelines would highlight the potential
risks of such reporting.
Who should be subject to the restriction?
7.5
7.6
We consider that the restriction should apply to any person who makes
public the details of an individual suicide, no matter
which medium is
used to do that. While most of the evidence of harm and public attention on
this issue tends to concern mainstream
media, the restrictions should extend
to any person. This is because the imitative effect is probably not
restricted to mainstream
media, and the convergence of new media, news
media and social media makes it impossible to define the type of
mainstream
media that is most closely connected with the potential
harm.
However, we do recommend that the statutory restrictions do not
apply to the Independent Policy Conduct Authority (when making
a report
under section 34(1)(b) of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988)
and the Police Commissioner (when publishing
an opinion or a recommendation
under that Act). They are both excluded by section 72 of the Coroners Act
from the current
restrictions. Those exclusions should continue.
When should the restrictions apply?
7.7
7.8
Currently, section 71 draws a small distinction between reporting the
details of a suicide before a coroner has completed his
or her inquiry
on the death and after that inquiry has been completed. If the inquiry
has not been completed, a person
may not make public “any particular
relating to the manner in which a death occurred” without a
coroner’s authority.85 If, however, a coroner has found a
death to be self-inflicted, a person may not make public “a particular of
the death”
other than the name, address, and occupation of the deceased
person or the fact that the coroner has found the death to be self-inflicted,
without a coroner’s authority or permission.86
This
distinction as currently drafted adds significant confusion to attempts to
understand the scope of the restrictions. We
do not consider that there is
any reason to continue to draw this distinction under our recommended
restriction on reporting
the method of suicide. The
85 Coroners Act 2006, s 71(1).
86 Coroners Act 2006, s 71(2).
Suicide Reporting 41
CHAPTER 7: The scope of the proposed statutory restriction
7.9
evidence of harm from reporting the method of suicide applies whether or
not there has been an official finding relating to that
method.
Of
course, a distinction will continue to apply to the proposed prohibition on
reporting the fact that the death was a suicide.
If a coroner has found that
the death was a suicide, that fact may then be reported.
Innuendo
7.10
7.11
7.12
It is common for innuendo to feature in media reports of suicide in New
Zealand, due perhaps to the uncertainty of the scope of
the statutory
restrictions that have been in place. Even when reports do not state
specifically that the death was a suicide,
or that a particular method was
used, or that particular circumstances are thought to have provided the
motivation for
the suicide death, those matters are often very apparent from
the bare facts chosen to be reported.
It is likely that the harm of
reporting suicide occurs both when suicide is reported directly and when
meaning is implied from
the context. It is the meaning of the report,
rather than the specific words used that may produce the harmful
effect.
Therefore, we consider the statutory restriction on reporting
the method of suicide should extend to both direct and indirect
reports of
that suicide.
“Make public”
7.13
The current restriction in section 71 of the Coroners Act 2006 uses the
phrase “make public”. It is defined in section
73 to mean:
publish by means of—
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
broadcasting (within the meaning of the Broadcasting
Act 1989); or a newspaper (within the meaning of the Defamation
Act 1992); or
a book, journal, magazine, newsletter, or other similar
document; or a sound or visual recording; or
an Internet site that is
generally accessible to the public, or some other similar electronic
means.
7.14
We considered whether that definition should be broadened to mean
“publish by any means”. We concluded, however,
that the
current definition captured well the potential harm from reporting the method
of a suicide, and a broader definition
is not justified.
The site of a suicide death
7.15
7.16
We closely considered the meaning of “method of death” and in
particular whether the statutory prohibition should also
extend to reports
of the site of the suicide, because much of the evidence of harm from
reporting the method of suicide
also extends to reporting the site of the
suicide. That harm occurs because the report might “advertise”
suicide by
that method to other vulnerable people.
However, on close
examination of the “site” elements of that harm, it is only those
descriptions of site that are suggestive
of the method that are linked with a
risk of harm in reporting suicide. For example, reporting that a body was
found on train
tracks, or at the bottom of a particular bridge or cliff,
clearly indicates that the deceased person is likely to have died
by
stepping in front of the train or by jumping from the high
location.
42 Law Commission Report
7.17
It is possible that this type of reporting would be covered if the legislative restriction captured both direct and indirect reports of the method of death. However, to be certain, we consider there is merit in the legislation stating specifically that “method of death” includes the site of the death when a description of the site is suggestive of the method.
EXEMPTIONS
7.18
7.19
7.20
The evidence supporting the statutory prohibition on reporting the
method of suicide is sufficiently strong that the situations
in which the
public good would be served by an exemption will be very rare. It has been
suggested to us that the media have a role
in alerting the public to novel
methods of suicide so that people may be aware of the dangers and take action to
minimise the risk.
However, people who work in suicide prevention warn that
such messages run a bigger risk of advertising the method of suicide to
vulnerable people. They suggest that any warning messages should not be
specifically linked to individual suicides because that
increases the risk
further by increasing the chance that vulnerable people will identify with
the deceased and be tempted to
emulate him or her.
Even though it
will be rare, we can envisage circumstances in which the public
interest in reporting the method of an
individual suicide may outweigh the
risk of harm. We think the Chief Coroner is best placed to make that
decision under
statutory criteria. An example may be where a public
institution has repeatedly ignored calls to take action to prevent access
to
a method of suicide, and it is thought that only publicity about another
death would force the institution to confront
the issue.
The situation
is similar in relation to reporting that a death is in fact a suicide. Given
that it will be open to the media to report
that a death is suspected to be
suicide (where the facts support that conclusion), we expect that applications
for exemptions
from this prohibition will also be rare. However, it is still
possible to envisage circumstances in which the public interest is
served by
specifically describing a death as suicide.
Grounds for an exemption
7.21
In considering whether to grant an exemption in reporting the method of
suicide, we consider that the decision maker must carefully
consider the
risk of further suicidal behaviour by vulnerable people if the details
are published. That consideration
must be informed by an understanding of
the most up-to-date evidence from New Zealand and overseas on the
association
between reporting the method of suicide and subsequent suicidal
behaviour by other vulnerable people. An exemption must only be
granted if the
decision maker considers that the risk of further suicidal behaviour by other
vulnerable people is small and is
outweighed by the public interest in
publishing the material.
The Chief Coroner
7.22
Currently any coroner may give authority under section 71 of the
Coroners Act to make public the details of a suicide
death. As we have
stated earlier, this has given rise to a variety of practices by different
coroners who have differing views
of the evidence linking suicide
reporting with subsequent suicidal behaviour by other people. We consider
that this variety
of practices is undesirable because it is counterproductive
to the goal of educating the media and the public about the risks
involved in
reporting suicide. For that reason, we are recommending that under our
proposed restrictions, only the Chief Coroner
(or the Deputy Chief Coroner
if the Chief Coroner is unavailable) should be able to grant
exemptions.
Suicide Reporting 43
CHAPTER 7: The scope of the proposed statutory restriction
7.23
7.24
We consider that the statute should provide that the Chief Coroner may
be assisted by a panel of experts from both the media
and mental health fields
in making this determination. This will ensure that he or she has an up-to-date
understanding of both the
evidence of harm from suicide reporting, and the role
and function of the media. The Ministry of Health should maintain a list of
names and contact details of those people who have agreed to advise the
Chief Coroner in this regard. Their fees should be
paid under the Witnesses
and Fees Interpretation Regulations
1974 or similar provisions.
It is
not envisaged that the Chief Coroner would access advice from the expert
panel in every case. This provision should be
a power, not an obligation.
It will enable the Chief Coroner to access expert advice from time to time
to ensure that
he or she has advice on particularly difficult cases and is
kept up to date with the latest evidence of harm. Depending
upon the
requirements of the Chief Coroner, the panel could meet on an ad hoc basis, or
urgently when the Chief Coroner is determining
an application for an
exemption. It could also be convened via electronic means, which would help
reduce the costs.
Timeliness
7.25
7.26
Timeliness is of the utmost importance in reporting the news.
Journalists have told us that under the current restrictions,
the need to
apply to a coroner for authority to publish the details of a death was often
too hard under the day-to-day pressures
of a newsroom when a story is
breaking.
Under our proposal the need to apply for an exemption
will be reduced because the scope of the restrictions is more
clearly
defined, and it is already widely accepted by the media that the method
of suicide should not be reported in
most cases. However, as stated, we
are recommending that under our proposal only the Chief Coroner (or the
Deputy Chief Coroner)
has the power to grant an exemption. The statute should
ensure that the Chief Coroner is able to prioritise those applications
and
deal with them by informal methods where necessary.87
Right of review
7.27
7.28
Section 75 of the Coroners Act currently provides a person who has been
refused permission to publish the particulars of a self-inflicted
death with a
power to apply to a High Court Judge for a review of that refusal. This
right of review is essential to a just
system of statutory decision making. It
should be continued but amended to reflect the new provision.
However,
we consider that given the statutory right of review, further appeals or
a right to resort to judicial review
under the Judicature Amendment Act
1972 is not warranted. The characteristics of judicial review (and the
inherent delay and
expense associated with it) make it particularly unsuitable
for this type of determination, for which timeliness is so important.
ENFORCEMENT
7.29
The current legislative restrictions are supported by an offence provision in
section 139 of the Coroners Act. A person who breaches
the restrictions may
be subject to a fine of $5,000 for a body corporate or $1,000 for other
people. To our knowledge, no one
has ever been prosecuted under that provision
in respect of suicide reporting.
87 Section 107 of the Care of Children Act 2004 and r 181 of the Family
Court Rules 2002 provide precedent for such legislative
guidance.
44 Law Commission Report
7.30
7.31
We consider that a criminal offence remains appropriate for the proposed
more clearly defined legislative restrictions on reporting
the method of
suicide or the fact that a death was a suicide. We envisage that it should be
more straightforward to bring a prosecution
under the proposed restrictions
given that they will be more tightly defined and more specifically
tied to the evidence
of harm.
We also suggest that the maximum fines
under the offence provision should be $20,000 for a body corporate and
$5,000 for
other people. This increase reflects the clearer connection
between the offence and the evidence of harm from the offending,
and brings
the offence into line with other similar offences, as demonstrated by the
following table:
MAXIMUM FINES IN COMPARABLE OFFENCES
Provision Maximum penalty
Offence
Broadcasting Act 1989, s 14. $100,000 for a broadcaster. Failing to comply
with an order of the Broadcasting Authority to publish
a statement, or refrain
from broadcasting, or from broadcasting advertisements etc.
Health Practitioners
Competence Assurance Act
2003, s 98.
$10,000. Publishing the name of the complainant or other identifying
details.
Bail Act, s 19(5). $100,000 for a body corporate. 6 months imprisonment for an individual.
Knowingly or recklessly publishing details of a bail hearing.
Bail Act, s 19(6). $50,000 for a body corporate.
$25,000 for an individual.
Publishing details of a bail hearing.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 211(1).
$100,000 for a body corporate. 6 months imprisonment for an
individual.
Knowingly or recklessly publishing a name etc in breach of a suppression
order.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 211(2).
$50,000 for a body corporate.
$25,000 for an individual.
Publishing a name etc in breach of a suppression order.
Harmful Digital
Communications Bill, s 18.
$5,000 for a natural person.
$20,000 for a body corporate.
Failing to comply with an order of the District Court to takedown
material, or cease the conduct concerned, or publish a correction
etc.
CORONERS’ OTHER POWERS
7.32
7.33
7.34
Under section 74 of the Coroners Act any coroner may prohibit the making
public of evidence or submissions given for the purposes
of a coronial
inquiry, if the coroner is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice,
decency, public order, or personal
privacy to do so. Coroners have
sometimes used this power (which relates to all types of inquiries, not
just suicide)
to pro- actively restrict the publication of details relating
to suicide deaths, despite the fact that section
71 already restricts all
details of a suicide death without coronial authority.
Nothing in our
proposal affects the powers of a coroner under section 74 of the Coroners
Act. Our terms of reference do not
include that section, which is
broader than issues of reporting suicide. We have taken care to ensure that
our recommendations
do not limit the powers in that section.
Therefore,
it follows that under our recommendations, while reporting the method of
suicide or the fact that the death is a suicide
will always be restricted
(unless the Chief Coroner grants an exemption), it will remain open under
section 74 to other coroners
to pro-actively restrict publication of evidence
or submissions on other matters in relation to specific suicide
cases.
Suicide Reporting 45
CHAPTER 8: Freedom of expression
Chapter 8
Freedom of expression
INTRODUCTION
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
New Zealand law has long placed great importance on freedom of expression and
its associated subset, the freedom of the press. These
are fundamental core
values of our legal system. As such, section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) states
that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom
to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions
of any kind in any
form.
It will be noted that freedom of the press is not expressly
mentioned in section 14 but the Court of Appeal has acknowledged that
an
important aspect of the right to freedom of expression is freedom of
speech.88 From any viewpoint, factual reporting or commentary on
suicide is well within the scope of the freedom of speech and freedom of
expression.
However, the freedom of the press is not absolute, and
is subject to a variety of common law and legislative qualifications
and
exceptions. These feature in litigation, and are central to the development
of legislation in New Zealand. This is because
NZBORA acknowledges limitations
that are considered reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society.89
In Auckland Area Health Board v
Television New Zealand Limited, the Court of Appeal accepted that it is
well established that publication of defamatory material can be enjoined. But
as Cooke
P noted, consistent with the principle we have already stated, this
should be exercised only for clear and compelling
reasons.90
In the context of suicide reporting, and what
is sometimes conveniently referred to as “prior restraint”, there
has been at least one controversial decision. In Board of Trustees of
Tuakau College v Television NZ Limited, Williams J allowed an
interlocutory injunction preventing Television New Zealand from broadcasting
anything concerning the suicides
of two students, pending conclusion of a
coroner’s inquest and a review by the Commissioner for Children.91
The authors of the treatise The New Zealand Bill of Rights, have
some difficulty with the decision of the judge because the reasons advanced
to support the decision “can only be described
as highly
speculative”.92 These were firstly that there was a danger
that some of the students of the college “may be suffering from distorted
thinking”
concerning the suicides, and that a broadcast of the Holmes
current affairs programme could possibly impel them to take action.
Secondly, the judge was concerned with the effect the broadcast
might have on
the minds of young people outside Tuakau College. Clearly the judge was deeply
concerned about the possibility of
movement from contemplation to action in
relation to suicide.93
88 See for example Auckland Area Health Board v Television New Zealand Limited [1992] NZCA 243; [1992] 3 NZLR 406; Television New Zealand Limited v Attorney- General [1995] 2 NZLR 641 (CA).
89 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 5.
90 Auckland Area Health Board v Television New Zealand Limited, above n 88, at 407.
91 Board of Trustees of Tuakau College v Television New Zealand Limited (1996) 2 HRNZ 87 (HC).
92 P Rishworth and others The New Zealand Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2003) at 335.
93 In fairness, the Judge anticipated the very matters discussed in
Chapter 2 of this Report.
46 Law Commission Report
8.6
8.7
This was a very strong prior restraint, because the television programme had
not yet been made. It is the strongest judicial prior
restraint we are aware of
in New Zealand.
With legislation it is always necessary to ask of any
prospective legislation: is it consistent with NZBORA? Indeed, NZBORA is of
such significance that the Attorney-General of New Zealand has a statutory
responsibility to advise Parliament that proposed legislation
does not
comport with NZBORA in some or all respects.94
The right is not absolute
8.8
8.9
The right to freedom of speech stands until, as Andrew Geddis has expressed
it, “such time as another more valuable or important
social good requires
that it be restricted”.95 Consideration of any such
restriction cannot be determined on any intrinsic formula. Apart from the
difficulties of evolving and
reaching agreement on any such formula, the
line is not static. As Stephen Sedley has said, “the location of
the line between free speech and censorship has shifted massively over
time and can be expected to go on doing so as political
and moral cultures go on
changing”.96 To that we would add, “and the potential
harms to which a given society may be subject may change in the course of
time”.
But as Sedley has put it: “There comes a point ... at which a
society is entitled to calculate that a malignant cause will
have a malign
effect”.97
Under section 5 of NZBORA, the right to
freedom of expression is subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law
as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. An analysis
of whether a breach of a right is a reasonable limit requires
a two-fold
inquiry:98
. Does the limit have a significant
and important objective?
. Is the limit rational and
proportional?
Those questions must be applied separately
to the two statutory restrictions we are recommending: reporting the
method of suicide, and the fact that a death is a suicide.
Significance
8.10
8.11
The first inquiry into significance is fairly easily settled. In
relation to the prohibition against reporting the method of
suicide, limiting
further suicides caused by a contagion effect is clearly a significant and
important public health objective.
In relation to the prohibition against
reporting the fact that a death is a suicide, we have argued in Chapter 2
that the harm
to the integrity of the coronial system of a breach is
significant.
It should be emphasised here that the restriction we are
recommending is a very narrow one. It is limited to the descriptions of the
method of the suicide, or the site of the suicide where that is suggestive of
the method, or to the fact that the death is a suicide.
It does not
extend to:
. other details of an individual suicide
death (however, we consider that a risk of harm
remains from reports of these details and any reports should comply with
guidelines as are outlined in Chapter 9);
. descriptions
of the death as a suspected suicide;
94 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 7.
95 Andrew Geddis “The State of Freedom of Expression in New Zealand: An admittedly eclectic overview” (2008) Otago LR 657 at 681.
96 Stephen Sedley “The Three Wise Monkeys Visit the Marketplace of Ideas: Censorship in a Free Society” (paper presented to the Annual Human
Rights Lecture of the Law Society, Dublin, July 2009).
97 Sedley, above n 96.
98 Legislation Advisory Committee Legislation Advisory Committee
Guidelines (Ministry of Justice, 2001) at [4.1.1].
Suicide Reporting 47
CHAPTER 8: Freedom of expression
. discussions of trends in suicide statistics;
. discussions concerning the accountability of public
institutions connected to a suicide death.
8.12
We are not suggesting that public discussions of these matters are
without risk, and we strongly recommend that guidelines for reporting suicide
are followed by anyone discussing suicide in
any way.
Rationality
8.13
The crux of the question of whether the proposed restriction is a
reasonable limitation under NZBORA lies in the second inquiry.
The issue
of rationality asks whether the proposed restriction will in fact achieve
the policy goal. In relation to the restriction
on reporting the method of
suicide, we consider the scientific evidence described in Chapter 2 is
clear that reporting
the method of suicide will increase the risk of
subsequent suicidal behaviour by vulnerable people. Therefore, it follows
that
restricting the reporting of the method of suicide will decrease that risk.
In relation to the restriction on reporting
the fact that the death is a
suicide, the harm is caused by usurping the coronial function. By prohibiting
early reports that
a death is in fact a suicide, the legislation is removing
that means of undermining the coronial function.
Proportionality
8.14
8.15
8.16
The issue of proportionality asks whether the proposed restriction will
infringe on the right to freedom of expression as little
as possible. We
consider that is the case with the proposed restrictions because:
.
the restrictions are tightly defined;
.
there is a power to apply for an exemption from the prohibition;
and
. a non-legislative process is unlikely to
achieve the policy goal.
In relation to reporting the method of
death, we investigated whether the goal of low-risk reporting of suicide
deaths could
be achieved solely through a non-legislative process: that
is, through voluntary guidelines and education initiatives. There
is some
evidence that the introduction of voluntary guidelines and education
initiatives in other jurisdictions
has produced substantial improvements
in the quality of reporting within those
jurisdictions.99
However, while those studies demonstrated that
the levels of risky reporting on suicide reduced, that does not necessarily mean
that
risky reporting has ceased altogether.
As we describe in Chapter
6, we have concluded that voluntary guidelines and education initiatives
alone are unlikely
to achieve the policy goal for two reasons. First, they are
unlikely to reach beyond mainstream media. We have found considerable
discussion of suicide in new media, much of it less constrained than
mainstream media. It is important that the message that reporting
the method of
a suicide runs a risk of producing a contagion effect reaches beyond
mainstream media to any person reporting
publicly on suicide whatever the
medium.
99 See for example, Jane E Pirkis and others The Media Monitoring Project: Changes in media reporting of suicide and mental health and illness in
Australia (Department of Health and Ageing (Australia), 2008).
48 Law Commission Report
8.17
8.18
Second, we are of the view that an initiative to produce a new set of
standards for reporting suicide by mainstream media is
the most appropriate
method of ensuring suicide is reported with minimal risk generally. However,
the fact that to date the
existing guidelines have not been well-utilised by
mainstream media in New Zealand raises some uncertainty about the success
of
future efforts. Therefore, it is important that the aspect of suicide reporting
with the greatest risk of a copycat effect (reporting
the method of the suicide)
is restricted by legislation.
For the prohibition on reporting the
fact that a death is a suicide, we consider that this restriction is
also the
least possible to achieve the policy goal of protecting the integrity
of the coronial system. We originally considered whether
the statutory
prohibition should extend to reports that the death was self-inflicted,
as that is also something considered
by a coroner. However, we concluded
that determining whether a death was self-inflicted could generally be more
easily established
on available facts. In contrast, a determination of suicide
requires an investigation into the intention of the deceased person,
which may
often be much more difficult to
determine.
Suicide Reporting 49
CHAPTER 9: Standards for reporting suicide
Chapter 9
Standards for reporting suicide
9.1
9.2
We have suggested that a legislative prohibition against reporting suicide
can only be justified in respect of reporting the method
of a suicide and the
fact that the death is a suicide. That leaves open the question of what to do
about all the other forms of
reporting suicide that may result in harm, but for
which a statutory prohibition is not justified. In this category are such
matters
as:
. repetitive coverage of
suicide;
. the prominence of suicide
items;
. speculating as to the cause of the
suicide;
. glorifying or sensationalising
suicide;
. reporting on celebrity suicides;
and
. using visual materials.
These
matters have been covered by voluntary guidelines and resource material, and
have had a difficult history in New Zealand.100
RECOMMENDATIONS
R15
R16
R17
The statute should provide that:
. the Minister
of Health (or his or her delegate) must prepare a set of standards for
suicide
reporting; and
. in doing so, the Minister
must consult with representatives of the media and of mental
health interests, and with such other people as he or she considers
appropriate.
The new standards for reporting suicide
should:
. apply to every person publicly reporting
on a suicide death including in mainstream
media, a blog or social media;
. be implemented
via a non-legislative mechanism (in respect of the mainstream
media,
that means via the various media standards bodies).
The statute
should require the Minister of Health (or his or her delegate) to implement
an ongoing programme to disseminate,
promote and support the
implementation of the standards, and to evaluate the success of those
standards in achieving the
goal of low-risk reporting of
suicide.
100 See Chapter 4 for a description of the background to guidelines and
resource material for reporting suicide in New Zealand.
50 Law Commission Report
DISCUSSION
A revised set of standards for a new era
9.3
9.4
9.5
As described in Chapter 4, it is apparent that neither the 2011 guidelines
nor the earlier version published in 1999 have become
a regular resource for
journalists when reporting suicide. It is likely, therefore, that journalists
are not well informed
about the potential risks of reporting suicide, and
decisions about reporting suicide are based simply on newsworthiness rather
than also on the risk of harm.
Therefore, it is essential that a
revised set of standards for reporting suicide is prepared and
implemented under the
leadership of the Minister of Health. We are
referring to these obligations as “standards” merely to
differentiate
them from the earlier guidelines. There is reason for
optimism that the recommended clarification of the scope of the statutory
restrictions will produce a much more constructive environment for these
fresh standards to be effective. The media and those
involved with
suicide prevention have much common ground. For example, the following are
agreed:
. There is much overseas research to the effect
that certain kinds of reporting suicide can lead
to copycat behaviour.101
. Evidence
justifies restraint in reporting suicide.102
.
In reporting suicide, journalists are required to be accurate and
should consider risk to other
vulnerable people.103
. Guidelines
for the media reporting of suicide are, generally speaking, an effective
method of
controlling the harm of reporting suicide.104
.
The history of suicide reporting guidelines in New Zealand has been
somewhat fraught.105
. A new set of
standards is needed for reporting suicide.106
.
Those standards should be agreed between the coroners, news media
organisations, mental
health experts and representatives of the public.107
It
is likely that by limiting the statutory restriction to only the method of
the suicide and the fact that a death is a suicide,
greater trust and
collaboration will be possible. The uncertainty about the scope of the current
statutory restrictions and
the consequent potential for them to be interpreted
broadly by some people, have, in our view, been responsible for an entrenched
view for some within the media that their right to freedom of expression is
under attack. That perceived attack goes to the core
of their understanding of
the fundamental role of the media in
society.
101 Letter from Tim Murphy (Chairman of the Media Freedom Committee) to Pam Southey (Ministry of Justice) (7 June 2013).
102 Letter from Tim Murphy (Chairman of the Media Freedom Committee) to Sir Grant Hammond (President of the Law Commission) (24 October
2013).
103 Letter from Tim Murphy, above n 102.
104 Annette L Beautrais and David M Fergusson “Media reporting of suicide in New Zealand: ‘more matter with less art’ (Hamlet, Shakespeare)” (2012) 125 NZMJ 5.
105 Beautrais and Fergusson, above n 104.
106 Letter from Tim Murphy (Chairman of the Media Freedom Committee) to Sir Grant Hammond (President of the Law Commission) (15 January
2014).
107 Letter from Tim Murphy, above n 102.
Suicide Reporting 51
CHAPTER 9: Standards for reporting suicide
9.6
9.7
Most members of the media consider that their responsibilities go
beyond fair and accurate reporting. They would support
the view that
where there is clear evidence of the potential for harm from their reporting,
they must take due account of that.
It is also likely that the apparent
conflation by the media of the current guidelines with the statutory
restrictions will disappear
when the statutory restriction becomes tied
specifically to method of suicide.
On the other side of the debate, we
are of the view that while mental health experts working in suicide
prevention are wary
of the perceived risks of reducing the scope of the
statutory restrictions, they would wholeheartedly support a limited
restriction if effective voluntary guidelines were also implemented. Their
goal is for suicide reporting to be done in a way
that reduces risk to
vulnerable people. It is not the particular mechanism for reducing the harm of
suicide reporting that matters
to this group, but rather the effectiveness of
the mechanism.
Enforcement of standards
Industry enforcement
9.8
9.9
9.10
9.11
We have concluded that the new set of standards for reporting suicide
should be enforced via non-legislative mechanisms. For
mainstream media, that
means via the three media standards organisations:
. The
Broadcasting Act 1989 establishes the Broadcasting Standards Authority and a
system
for determining complaints against television and radio broadcasters.
If the Authority decides that a complaint is justified,
it may order the
broadcaster to publish a statement, to refrain from broadcasting, or to
refrain from broadcasting advertisements
for up to 24 hours. It is likely,
however, that an amendment to that Act would be required before any set of
standards for
reporting suicide could be specifically enforced under that
system.
. The Press Council and the Online Media Standards
Authority are completely self-regulating
voluntary bodies. The Press Council covers daily newspapers, community
newspapers and magazines. The Online Media Standards Authority
covers online
news and current affairs. If they uphold a complaint, the publisher must
publish the essence of the ruling. Both
bodies could voluntarily enforce a new
set of standards for reporting suicide.
Our research indicates that to
date only the Press Council has dealt with complaints specifically about the
potential harm from
reporting suicide.108 In the case of the
Broadcasting Standards Authority that may be because none of its current
standards deal specifically with
reporting suicide. The Online Media
Standards Authority on the other hand has only been hearing complaints
since 2013.
In its 2012 Report The News Media Meets ‘New
Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age,
the Law Commission recommended the establishment of a new independent media
complaints body to replace the three disparate
systems of media
regulation. The Government did not adopt that recommendation, although it
agreed to keep this area
under review.109
It was (and
remains) the Commission’s view that the current disparate systems have
become untenable in the digital era,
which has seen a convergence of media
platforms. The proposed News Media Standards Authority (Authority), if
adopted, would
have been independent of
108 See New Zealand Press Council: S J Nicol Against Craccom (Case Number 787, June 2000); Tony Booker Against Manawatu Evening Standard (Case Number 855, November 2001); Canterbury Suicide Project Against The Dominion Post (Case Number 910, February 2003); Kapiti College Against Kapiti News (Case Number 1084, March 2007); Paraparaumu College Against Kapiti News (Case Number 1085, March 2007).
109 Law Commission The News Media Meets ‘New Media’:
Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age (NZLC R128, 2013)
at 130.
52 Law Commission Report
9.12
9.13
government, and substantially independent of the media industry. It would
have been chaired by a retired judge or other respected,
experienced and
well-known public figure. The majority of members would have represented the
public. A minority of members would
have represented the media so that the
Authority was well informed about the industry and understood its inherent
pressures.110
The Commission stopped short of recommending
that the new Authority should have the power to issue fines, stating
that
fines would need to be significant to be effective for larger
organisations, which in turn would lead to increased legalism
and
incentives for litigious behaviour. Instead it was recommended that the
Authority have the power to censure or to
require an apology, right of
reply, that material be taken down or that its decision be published. In
exceptional cases it should
have the power to suspend or terminate the
membership of a media agency.111
Such a unified complaints
system would have provided the ideal enforcement mechanism for a new set of
standards for reporting
suicide. Despite the lack of a financial penalty
available to it, the Authority’s relative independence from the media
industry, and its range of practical enforcement options, would have provided
an effective platform upon which to launch a
new set of standards.
Legislative regulatory enforcement
9.14
9.15
9.16
9.17
There is some doubt amongst mental health professionals that the
new standards will be adhered to by mainstream media
if there is no
legislative enforcement of those standards. In light of the degree of distrust
of voluntary regulation, and the
government’s current rejection of a new
unified media complaints body, we put a great deal of effort into analysing a
spectrum
of legislative regulatory options for a new set of standards for
reporting suicide. In particular we analysed whether the statute
should
require all people who make public the details of an individual suicide to
comply with the standards for reporting
suicide. We also analysed whether it
should provide that breaches of those standards are:
. a
criminal offence;
. an infringement
offence;
. subject to a civil penalty;
.
subject to a civil enforcement regime via a new statutory complaints
committee (this might
include the power to impose a fine); or
.
subject to new coronial powers to issue warnings, or to order
material to be taken down.
We noted that if the statute
provided a requirement to comply with standards for reporting suicide, then
the coroner would
have powers under clause 10(2) of the Harmful Digital
Communications Bill (if enacted) to apply to the District Court for orders,
including to have material taken down from websites or digital platforms,
and to cease the conduct concerned.
After much analysis and consultation
on various models, we concluded that a legislative model is not appropriate
for the enforcement
of standards for reporting suicide, for two
reasons.
First, many of the requirements for low-risk suicide
reporting cannot be expressed with sufficient certainty to support
a
legislative obligation, without becoming an unjustified restriction on
the right to freedom of expression. Some requirements
simply defy attempts
to
110 The News Media Meets ‘New Media’, above n 109, at 160-163.
111 The News Media Meets ‘New Media’, above n 109, at
170.
Suicide Reporting 53
CHAPTER 9: Standards for reporting suicide
9.18
make them sufficiently certain: for example, restrictions on
sensationalising or glorifying a suicide death. Even if a particular
requirement could be made sufficiently certain, we consider that any
enforcement by a legislative regulatory method would
make that
requirement an unjustified breach of the right to freedom of expression in
section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990. As we have stated
before, it is only reporting the method of suicide that is supported by
sufficient evidence
of harm to reach the justification in section 5 of that
Act. We consider that while there is significant evidence that,
for
example, reporting a suicide in a glorifying manner may increase the risk of
copycat suicides, and that such evidence is sufficient
for journalists and
others to voluntarily curb their reporting practices, it is not strong enough
to justify a statutory restriction.
Second, a legislative regulatory
system of enforcing a suicide reporting code is not likely to be the most
effective method
of achieving the policy goal of encouraging low-risk
suicide reporting. Regulatory requirements will tell a journalist, blogger
or
person on social media what they should and should not do, but they do not
explain why a breach of the requirements
is risky. Avoiding risky suicide
reporting requires nuanced decision making because it cannot be completely
covered by regulatory
restrictions. A journalist, for example, is far more
likely to make low-risk decisions if he or she understands why and how
glorifying
a suicide report may result in subsequent suicidal
behaviour.
The need for ongoing leadership
9.19
9.20
9.21
9.22
Despite our conclusion that new standards are not suitable for
enforcement by legislative means, there may still be a benefit
in having a
statutory obligation to prepare guidelines, even if enforcement of those
guidelines operates outside the legislative
framework. The statute could
require the Minister of Health (or his or her delegate) to prepare a
set of suicide reporting
standards in consultation with mental health
experts and representatives of the media and require the Minister to have
an
ongoing programme of dissemination, education and monitoring of the
code.
Whether or not these matters should be contained in statute
depends upon an assessment of whether the relevant bodies are likely
to
undertake sufficient leadership of this task without a statutory
requirement.
In our view, as we described in Chapter 4,
previous attempts at implementing voluntary guidelines in New Zealand
have been ineffective because of the lack of success in securing
agreement between opposing viewpoints, and the lack
of an adequate
ongoing programme to support the implementation of guidelines. Success in
those matters is the key to effective
guidelines.
The Mindframe
National Media Initiative in Australia provides a world leading example
which has been proven effective.112 As noted in Chapter 4,
under that programme, priority is given to building relationships and
fostering influence with the
media with the aim of encouraging responsible,
accurate and sensitive reporting of suicide and mental illness. In
addition
to resources for its website and scientific evaluations of the
effectiveness of the guidelines, Mindframe’s ongoing programme
of relationship building includes:
. face-to-face
meetings;
. drop-in visits;
.
offering ad hoc advice;
112 Mindframe “Mindframe: National Media Initiative” <www.mindframe-media.info>.
54 Law Commission Report
. distributing hard and soft copies of resource and supporting materials; and
. creating and distributing tools for education providers in journalism, public relations and
communications.
9.23
9.24
That is a completely different way of thinking from the model where
guidelines are published and it is simply hoped that the media
will take
note.
It is apparent to us that Mindframe’s extensive work
programme is supported by a significant commitment of government funds.
However, we are of the view that no matter
the size of the public financial
support for the implementation of suicide reporting standards in New Zealand, a
lot can be learned
from the Australian model, and an ongoing programme
to support the implementation of standards is essential to their
success.
It is our view that leadership by the Minister of Health is
crucial to the success of a future set of standards for reporting suicide.
For
that reason we are also of the view that the Minister’s obligations in
this regard should be in legislation.
The statute should require the
Minister to prepare a new set of standards for reporting suicide, in
consultation with
at least the media and mental health experts. It should
also require the Minister to implement an ongoing programme to disseminate,
promote and support the implementation of the standards, and to evaluate the
success of those standards in achieving the
goal of low-risk reporting of
suicide. A legislative obligation would signal the priority that must
be given to leadership
in the preparation, dissemination, promotion,
education and evaluation of a new set of
guidelines.
Suicide Reporting 55
CHAPTER 10: Summary of recommendations
Chapter 10
Summary of recommendations
STATUTORY RESTRICTION
R1 Section 71 of the Coroners Act 2006 should be repealed and replaced by provisions to the following effect:
. Unless the Chief Coroner has granted an exemption, no person may directly or indirectly
make public the method of death.
. Unless the Chief Coroner has granted an exemption or has made a finding that a death
is a suicide, no person may make public a description of a death that
describes it as a suicide.
R2 The recommended statutory restrictions should apply if a death
occurs in New Zealand after the commencement of the restriction
and there is
reasonable cause to believe the death was self-inflicted.
R3 The recommended statutory restrictions should not apply to the
Independent Police Conduct Authority or to the Police Commissioner
to the same
extent that section 72 of the Coroners Act 2006 excludes them from the current
statutory restrictions in section 71.
R4 In relation to the recommended statutory restriction, “make public” should have the same meaning as currently in section 73, that is:
make public means publish by means of—
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
broadcasting (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1989); or a
newspaper (within the meaning of the Defamation Act 1992);
or
a book,
journal, magazine, newsletter, or other similar document; or a sound or visual
recording; or
an internet site that is generally accessible to the public,
or some other similar electronic
means.
R5 “Method of death” should include the site of the death
where a description of the site is suggestive of the
method.
R6 The Act should state that nothing in the restriction in R1 above
prevents a person from stating that a death is a suspected
suicide.
R7 The Act should provide that any person may apply to the Chief Coroner
for an exemption from the restrictions in
R1.
56 Law Commission Report
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
The Act should provide that the Chief Coroner must not grant an exemption
unless satisfied that the circumstances are such that
any risk of copycat
suicidal behaviour from the making public of the method of the death or from
describing the death as a suicide,
as the case may be, is small and is
outweighed by other matters in the public interest.
The Act should
provide that, in making that determination, the Chief Coroner may be
assisted by an expert panel comprising
suicide prevention experts and
media experts. For that purpose, the Ministry of Health should constitute
a panel of
not more than three people. Their fees and expenses should
be met under the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations
1974 or
similar.
To ensure that an application for an exemption is dealt
with speedily, the statute should:
. provide that
the Chief Coroner must, so far as is practicable, give priority to
any
application for an exemption; and
. provide
that the Chief Coroner may deal with an application by way of a telephone
or
video conference link-up, email or fax, but must keep a record of any
determination, with short reasons.
For the purposes of these
provisions, the “Chief Coroner” should include the Deputy Chief
Coroner when the Chief Coroner is unavailable.
Section 75 of the
Coroners Act 2006, which provides a right to apply to the High Court for a
review, should be amended to
apply to an applicant for an
exemption from the recommended statutory restrictions. The decision of the
High Court
should be final. There should be no further review or
appeal.
There should be no ability to apply for judicial review of the
exemption decision under the
Judicature Amendment Act 1972.
Section 139 of the Coroners Act
2006 should be amended to apply to the recommended restrictions in R1. In
respect of breaches
of those restrictions:
. The maximum fine should
be $20,000 for a body corporate or $5,000 in any other case.
.
The offence does not apply to a person who hosts material
on websites or other
electronic retrieval systems that can be accessed by a user unless the
specific information has been placed or entered on the site
or system by that
person.
Suicide Reporting 57
CHAPTER 10: Summary of recommendations
STANDARDS FOR REPORTING SUICIDE
R15
R16
R17
The statute should provide that:
. the Minister
of Health (or his or her delegate) must prepare a set of standards for
suicide
reporting; and
. in doing so, the Minister
must consult with representatives of the media and of mental
health interests, and with such other people as he or she considers
appropriate.
The new standards for reporting suicide
should:
. apply to every person publicly reporting
on a suicide death including in mainstream
media, a blog or social media;
. be implemented
via a non-legislative mechanism (in respect of the mainstream
media,
that means via the various media standards bodies).
The statute
should require the Minister of Health (or his or her delegate) to implement
an ongoing programme to disseminate,
promote and support the
implementation of the standards, and to evaluate the success of those
standards in achieving the
goal of low-risk reporting of
suicide.
58 Law Commission Report
Appendix A
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Review of restrictions in the Coroners Act 2006 on reporting of
suicide
The Law Commission will undertake a first principles review of the legislative provisions restricting the reporting of suicide as set out in sections 71–73 of the Coroners Act 2006. The review will examine whether the current restrictions on making public details of self-inflicted deaths strike an appropriate balance between the public health goal of reducing the likelihood of imitative (“copycat”) suicide and the principle of freedom of expression.
In particular, the review will consider whether sections 71–73 should be amended (or removed). If it is proposed that these sections be retained in some form, the review will consider:
. the information about a self-inflicted death that is appropriate to make public, and at what stage of
the coronial investigation;
. the definitions to support the proposals including, if relevant, “detrimental to public safety”,
“particulars” and any particular relating to the “manner” in which a death occurred;
. whether the same provisions should apply for different forms of media, for example media
organisations, bloggers and social media; and
. the rules for reporting suspected suicides outside New
Zealand.
If any amendments are proposed to the existing legislative provisions,
suggested drafting should be provided.
A final report will be published by 28 March
2014.
Suicide Reporting 59
APPENDIX B: Consultation list
Appendix B
CONSULTATION LIST
Chief Coroner Neil MacLean
Coroner Wallace Bain
The Coroners Reference Group
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Health
The Law Commission’s Māori Liaison
Committee
Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Chief Science
Advisor to the Prime Minister
Dr John Crawshaw, Director of Mental Health
Professor Sunny Collings Dr Annette Beautrais Professor David Fergusson Dr Keren Skegg
Dr Terryann Clark
Sandra Palmer, Clinical Advisory Services
Aotearoa
Shelly Dean, Ministry of Education
Media Freedom Committee
Rick Neville Clive Lind Sinead Boucher Mary Major
Dr James Hollings Hon Sir John Hansen Hon Tariana Turia
Tania
Papali’i, Northland District Health Board
Te Kupenga mo
Kawerau
Dr Russell Wills, Children’s Commissioner Sophia
Graham, Mental Health Foundation Moira Clunie, Mental Health Foundation Witi
Ashby, Mental Health Foundation
The Interagency Suicide Prevention
Committee
Maria Bradshaw, CASPER Mark Wilson
Kevan McConnell,
Ministry of Social
Development, Kawerau
60 Law Commission Report
Appendix C
KEY SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE EVIDENCE
Pirkis and Blood “Suicide and the news and information media: A
critical review” (2010)113
This review examined 97 studies over the past 50 years on the
imitative effect of presentations of suicide in newspapers,
television,
books and the internet. It specifically considered methodological issues
associated with each body of studies,
and critically examined whether those
issues limited the inferences that could be made about the interpretation of
findings.
The review examined the strength of the association between the portrayal of suicide in the media and actual suicidal behaviour, and the extent to which that association could be considered causal. In determining causality, it examined five features of the findings:
. Consistency: whether the association was consistently observed, regardless of study design and
population sampled.
. Strength: whether the association was statistically significant, and particularly whether there was
evidence that the greater the exposure to the media coverage of suicide, the greater the increase in suicide rates.
. Temporality: whether exposure to the media coverage of suicide occurred before actual suicides.
. Specificity: whether the people exhibiting the suicidal behaviour were actually exposed to media
coverage of suicide.
. Coherence: whether the association was in line with known facts about the influence of media and
suicide.
Newspapers
The review examined 41 studies of differing types. The vast majority suggested an association between newspaper reports of suicide and actual suicidal behaviour. From that body of evidence the review found that it was reasonable to regard the association was causal, because:
. the association was reliably observed under almost all study methodologies;
. a dose‐response effect was evident such that the greater the newspaper coverage of a particular
suicide, the more substantial the increase in subsequent suicides; and
. the findings were coherent in that they made sense in light of what is already known about the
influence of the media and suicide.
Despite the finding of causality, the review noted that only a
limited number of studies permitted a determination of whether
the media
stimuli preceded an increase in suicide rates, and only a few studies were
able to demonstrate that a reasonable
proportion of those who subsequently
died by suicide were exposed to the media
stimulus.
113 Jane E Pirkis and Warwick Blood Suicide and the news and
information media: A critical review (Commonwealth of Australia,
2010).
Suicide Reporting 61
APPENDIX C: Key systematic reviews of the evidence
Other media
The review examined 11 studies about television (all of a similar design), 20 studies of the internet (mostly descriptive studies), and 20 studies of mixed media (of differing designs). The review found that the studies provided cautious support for a causal association:
. The associations were generally consistent. With only a few exceptions, the studies all found a
similar association.
. In each case, the findings were coherent.
. The internet and mixed media studies were able to show the temporality and specificity of the
association, with strong evidence that individuals were exposed to the suicide material before their suicidal behaviour. The television studies based their data on monthly rather than daily figures so were not able to demonstrate that the media reports actually occurred before the suicidal behaviour, nor that the person was exposed to the report.
. The television studies demonstrated the strength of the association in that it was most evident
immediately after the media stimulus and then dissipated. The internet
and mixed media studies were not designed to be able to
demonstrate the strength
of the association.
The review also examined five studies about books, but they were all about
the book Final Exit, which advocates suicide for the terminally ill. It
found that the association between that book and suicidal behaviour was
causal.
Sisask and Varnik “Media Roles in Suicide Prevention: A Systematic
Review” (2012)114
The purpose of this review of 56 studies was to give an overview of
the research and to find out the effects of media
reporting of suicide on
actual suicidality. The review pulled 1180 studies from electronic
databases and whittled them down
to 56 eligible analytical research reports
on non-fictional portrayals of suicide behaviour. The review found that the
vast
majority of studies support the idea that media coverage of suicidal
behaviours and actual suicidality are associated.
Only four studies found
no significant associations (all before 1990) and a further five expressed
hesitations about clear associations
or reported incoherent results. The
review warned, however, of a risk of reporting bias in that “researchers
are eager
to report meaningful positive results, but could keep silent if the
results are not beneficial”.
Niederkrontenthaler “Changes in suicide rates following media
reports on celebrity suicide: a meta-analysis”
(2012)115
This study was a meta-analysis of 10 previous ecological studies covering
98 celebrity suicides. This is a particularly strong
study design as it
systematically re-analysed the published aggregate data from the previous
studies and provided cumulative
insights into the association between media
reports of celebrity suicides and subsequent suicides.
This study found that:
. The average increase in the suicide rate across the pooled results was 0.26 in the month after a
report on a celebrity suicide (with 95 per cent of the results lying between 0.09 and 0.43).
. The imitative effect was most pronounced after reports on suicides by national top entertainers.
. There was a substantial diversity of results across the studies, which could be explained by regional
differences in reporting practices for suicides.
114 Merike Sisask and Airi Varnik “Media Roles in Suicide Prevention: A Systematic Review” (2012) 9 Int J Environ Res Public Health 123.
115 Thomas Niederkrotenthaler “Changes in suicide rates following media reports on celebrity suicide: a meta-analysis” (2012) 66 J Epidemiol
Community Health 1037.
62 Law Commission Report
Stack “Suicide in the Media: A Quantitative Review of Studies Based
on Nonfictional Stories” (2005)
This review suggested that the variation in findings across the studies examining the impacts of media coverage of suicide may be explained by their different methodologies. The review examined 419 findings from 55 different studies. It found:
. Substantial variations in the effects found by different studies.
. Studies that examined reports of a suicide by an entertainment or political celebrity were 5.27 times
more likely than other studies to find a copycat effect.
. Studies based on stories with powerful negative definitions of suicide were 99 per cent less likely
than other research to report a copycat effect. Examples of suicide stories that stressed negative definitions were Kurt Cobain’s death (which included condemnation of the suicide by his spouse) and the 1978 mass suicide at Jonestown (where the coverage included footage of rotting bodies in piles and quickly labelled the suicides as cult-inspired).
. Studies based on television coverage were 79 per cent less likely to report an imitative effect than
studies based on newspaper stories.
. Studies that examined female suicide rates were 4.89 times more likely to find copycat effects than
those based on male rates or total suicide rates.
. Studies examining the suicidal behaviour of young people were 54 per cent less likely to find an
imitative effect than studies examining the total population.
. Of the 419 findings reported in the 55 studies, 35.8 per
cent found an imitative effect.
Gould “Suicide and Media” (2001)116
This narrative review reported on the range of studies examining the association between suicide reporting and subsequent suicidal behaviour that had been conducted to date. It placed particular emphasis on identifying the different characteristics of non-fictional reporting or of the vulnerable person that influence the size of the contagion effect. It found:
. The studies clearly demonstrate that extensive newspaper coverage of suicide is associated with a
significant increase in the rate of suicide, and that the magnitude of the increase is proportional to the amount, duration and prominence of media coverage.
. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnitude of the increase in suicidal behaviour after
newspaper coverage of a suicide is related to the amount of publicity given to the story and the prominence of the story in the newspaper.
. Studies found that celebrity status of the person reported to have died by suicide had a greater
impact than non-celebrity stories.
. Studies found that the imitative effect is greatest for teenagers.
. Interestingly, the imitative effect does not appear to be stronger for demographic groups already
strongly predisposed to suicide (“males, whites, unmarried people, or retired persons”).
. There is increasing research evidence to support the suggestion that the imitative effect is greater
amongst individuals who share similar life and demographic characteristics
to the person reported to have died by suicide.
116 Madelyn S Gould “Suicide and the Media” (2001) 932 Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences 200–224.
Suicide Reporting 63
APPENDIX D: Guidelines for reporting suicide
Appendix D
GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING SUICIDE
New Zealand
Media Roundtable Reporting Suicide: A resource for the media (December
2011). http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/reporting-suicide-resource-media
Ministry of Health Suicide and the Media: The reporting and portrayal of
suicide in the media (1999).
http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/reporting-suicide-resource-media
Australia
Mindframe Reporting suicide and mental illness: a Mindframe resource for
media professionals (2002). http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/Downloads/?a=5139
Australian Press Council Standards Relating to Suicide (2011).
http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/standard-suicide-reporting/
United Kingdom
Samaritans (UK) Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide and Self-Harm.
http://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide
64 Law Commission Report
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/lawreform/NZLCR/2014/131.html