Level 1: Consideration by Council staff - Australian Press Council

INTRODUCTION

This page outlines the main processes for consideration of complaints by Council staff (known as Level 1). The initial procedures for receiving a complaint are outlined here, and the subsequent procedures for deciding whether to refer it to the Council’s adjudication processes (known as Level 2) are outlined here. In practice, the great majority of complaints are finalised at Level 1.

“Secondary complaints”

Where a complainant is not personally identified or directly affected by the published material, the complaint may be considered as a “secondary complaint”. In secondary complaints, the complaints-handling process does not involve the complainant after a particular stage in the process has been reached, unless the Executive Director decides that it is desirable to do so in order to effectively clarify relevant issues. This may occur, for example, if there are multiple complainants. However, all secondary complainants will be kept appropriately informed of the progress of the Council’s consideration and of the final outcome, whether personally or by a general notice on the Council’s website.

For further information, see the fact sheet on Secondary Complaints .

Confidentiality

All evidence and other material provided by the Council to the complainant or the publication must remain strictly confidential until the complaint is finally dealt with, unless it has already been made public or has been obtained from another source. If the complainant has signed a confidentiality agreement, documentation or information obtained from the Council or another party for the first time in the course of the Council’s handling of the complaint will be permanently confidential.

For further information, see the fact sheet on Legal Proceedings.

INFORMAL CONSIDERATION

If a matter is referred to Level 1, the Executive Director or another member of the Council's complaints-handling staff undertakes informal consideration and, if necessary, investigation of the issues, before deciding whether to seek a response from the publication.

There may be further communication with the complainant and the publication in order to clarify the issues and, where appropriate, explore the possibility of an outcome which both are willing to accept. This may involve a request for response being sent to the publication that identifies particular issues on which the Council is seeking information or comment from the publication. In some circumstances, the Executive Director may conduct or organise a formal mediation if the complainant and publication agree to that course of action.

Possible outcomes

Possible outcomes from discussions with publications which may fully or partially address complainants' concerns include:

an explanation of why the material was published;

an informal expression of regret by the publication;

publication of balancing material (e.g., a reply by or on behalf of the complainant);

publication of a correction, clarification or apology in an agreed form:

amendment or removal of material on a website;

commitments about future coverage of particular people or issues.

commitments to standards training and education.

Discontinuance

Consideration of a complaint is discontinued at Level 1 if the Executive Director decides

the complainant has withdrawn the complaint or has not responded to communication from the Council within a reasonable period; or

it is more appropriate for consideration by some other process (such as the Council considering whether to issue or amend a relevant Standard of Practice; or referring the complaint for consideration by another organisation); or

Council has facilitated a measure of redress and/or the publication has sufficiently remedied the matter; or

even if the facts alleged in the complaint are correct, it is unlikely that a breach of the Council's Standards of Practice has occurred; or

the extent to which consideration of the complaint might require the commitment of greater resources by the Council, the publication or the complainant than is reasonably proportionate to the significance of the likely breaches; or

for some other reason, the complaint is inappropriate for further consideration by the Council.

When considering whether a “secondary complaint” should be discontinued, the Executive Director also takes account of the factors mentioned under the heading “Secondary complaints” in the section on Reception of complaints.

A complainant can seek review of a decision by the Executive Director to discontinue. The request must be received within seven days of being notified of the decision. For further information, see Review of Decisions. The original decision is not changed on review unless the grounds for doing so are very strong.

CONSIDERATION OF REFERRAL TO AN ADJUDICATION PROCESS

If the matter has not been discontinued or resolved during the Informal Consideration stage, the Executive Director will consider whether it should be referred to an Adjudication process. In order to do so, the Executive Director will prepare a Provisional Summary of Issues (PSOI) taking into account information and comments provided by the complainant and the publication. The PSOI will include:

the relevant wording or other aspects of the published material in question;

the relevant parts of the Council’s Standards of Practice;

facts and issues relating to the complaint.

The PSOI will be sent to the complainant for comment and then, after consideration of any such comment, will be sent to the publication for a response. The complainant and the publication will be given an opportunity at that time to suggest supplementary material which they consider should be taken into account. These responses will be considered by the Executive Director, who will then decide whether to refer the complaint to one of the Council’s Adjudication processes.

When the complainant’s comment is sought, the complainant will be advised that his or her name and some details of their complaint are likely to be disclosed publicly if an adjudication is made. Any request for confidentiality must be made at this stage, before a decision is made whether to refer the matter to the Council’s Adjudication process. A later request will be considered only in exceptional circumstances.

"Secondary complaints"

In secondary complaints, consideration of possible referral to the Council’s Adjudication process may not involve the complainant unless the Executive Director decides that it is desirable to do so in order to clarify relevant issues. However, where practicable, the complainant is kept appropriately informed of the stage which the Council’s consideration has reached and of the final outcome.

Letters of Advice

If a complaint is not referred to an Adjudication Panel, the Executive Director may decide that in addition to discontinuing the matter he or she will send a formal Letter of Advice to the publication about any substantial risks of breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice that are relevant to publishing material of the kind in question.

The Letter of Advice may identify factors which increased or reduced the risk of breach in the particular case, and provide advice about any action which may reduce the risk in future. In order to provide general guidance for other publications and for members of the public, any such advice may subsequently be made public without identifying the publication or complainant.

REFERRAL TO THE ADJUDICATION PROCESS

Once submissions have been exchanged, the next meeting of one of the Press Council’s Adjudication Panels will consider and usually determine the complaint. Panels comprise the Chair (either the Council Chair or, usually, one of the Vice-Chairs) plus an equal number of Public Members and Industry Members.

In referring a matter to either the Direct or Full Adjudication process, the Executive Director will identify and refer those complaints considered suitable for handling through this streamlined process. Consideration is given to:

the seriousness, novelty and complexity of the issues; and
the facts, issues and evidence involved and the need for oral submissions by the parties.

In appropriate circumstances, guided by the rules of natural justice, the Council may request or receive further information from one or both of the parties.

Direct Adjudication

In most instances, where matters are referred for Direct Adjudication, the panel will make its decision “on the papers”, without the requirement for oral submissions from either the complainant or the publication.

However, where the Executive Director believes, in consultation with the Panel Chair, that there are special circumstances that warrant oral presentations, he or she may authorise this and inform the parties accordingly.

The normal procedure involves:

consideration of a Final Summary of Issues and any relevant supplementary materials provided by the Secretariat;
members of the Panel then deliberate privately and determine the issues; and
a draft Adjudication is finalised and issued for publication, as required under the Council’s Constitution

Direct Adjudications will be published in the form of a summary (on the order of 200 words) highlighting the nature of the complaint and the resulting outcome (upheld/dismissed), with a link to the full text of the adjudication on the publication’s website. All adjudications will continue to be published on the Council’s website and publicised through media releases and via social media outlets. Complainants may also publicise the outcome through their own communication channels.

Full Adjudication

The Full Adjudication Panel meets monthly in person to consider matters referred to it, and, the complainant and the publication are normally required to participate by teleconference. The normal procedure involves:

consideration of a Final Summary of Issues and any relevant supplementary materials provided by the Secretariat;
participation of the complainant and publication, each of whom can make an opening statement of up to five minutes, answer questions from the Panel, and make a two minute closing statement;
members of the Panel then deliberating privately and determining the issues; and
a draft Adjudication being finalised and issued for publication, as required under the Council’s Constitution.

Full adjudications may either be published in full length (usually 300-800 words) or in a short summary form (usually fewer than 200 words) that highlights the nature of the complaint and the resulting outcome (upheld/dismissed).

All adjudications will be published in full on the Council’s website and publicised by media release and on social media outlets. Complainants may also publicise the outcome through their own communication channels.

If the Executive Director decides to refer a matter to an Adjudication Panel, the Secretariat will prepare a Final Summary of Issues which appropriately incorporates the relevant views of both the complainant and publication. Before the Final Summary of Issues and any supplementary material are sent to the Adjudication Panel members, they will be sent to the complainant and the publication for a brief opportunity (usually 48 hours) to suggest any important corrections that need to be made. No subsequent changes or additions can be made to the Final Summary of Issues unless the Chair of the Panel considers that there are compelling reasons for allowing them.

In exceptional circumstances, the Chair of the Panel may approve that some material submitted in advance of the Adjudication Panel meeting by a complainant or publication, can to be disclosed to the Panel but not to the other participant. All such requests must be submitted to the Chair, no later than three business days prior to the meeting and are subject to strict scrutiny. The Chair will explain the reasons for that decision insofar as it is possible to do so without breaching the necessary confidentiality.