Press Council Decided The Daily Mail’s Story About A Trans Ax Attacker Breached Its ‘Standards Of Practice’

Before we get into the Press Council’s complaint, let’s untangle the story at hand.

An Australian trans-woman (so a biological man) allegedly attacked two people with an ax at a 7-Eleven early last year (January 2017). He ended up fracturing the base of a woman’s skull and attempted to wound another man, who dodged his blows. He pleaded not guilty to six charges.

Via the Sydney Morning Herald:

Crown prosecutor Daniel McMahon said Ms Amati had been out with friends on the evening of January 6 and took a pill she believed to be ecstasy, but was actually the amphetamine MDA. She became involved in a “heated conversation” with a friend on Facebook Messenger in the early hours of January 7, which “escalated”.

During the conversation, Ms Amati allegedly said: “Most people deserve to die … I hate people” and “One day I’m going to kill a lot of people”.

Right before the attack, he updated his Facebook status to read, “Humans are only able to destroy, to hate, so that is what I shall do.”

At this point, Amati’s lawyers are trying to say that he wasn’t in his right mind. Yes. His physical body committed the attack, but was his mind responsible?

Yes, really.

Ms Amati’s barrister Charles Waterstreet said there was no dispute that his client’s body had committed the axe attack, but the question to be decided was what was happening in her mind.

“It’s not whether the body of Evie Amati was guilty of the charges, but whether the mind, brain, soul of Evie Amati bore any legal or moral responsibility for the body’s actions,” Mr Waterstreet said.

Now, Amati is claiming that he was possessed by a demon. He claims he heard a voice in his head that said “kill, maim and inflict pain on people and start the rise of hell on earth.”

He said he can’t remember the attack at all.

Giving evidence on Thursday, Ms Amati said she smoked two joints of cannabis on her balcony, about 450 metres away from where the attack unfolded, early on January 7.

She had heard whispered voices after leaving a failed first date and wanted to go to sleep, but after smoking the first joint the voices became louder so she smoked the second to “sedate” herself.

“They stopped being whispers. They started being actual words,” Ms Amati said.

“I started seeing some of the violent visions I’d seen previously of me running at police with the axe and being shot dead.”

Her final memory before waking up in hospital the next day was sitting on her balcony, hearing a voice “that had been telling me to kill and maim and inflict pain on people and start the rise of hell on earth”.

“I recall everything going quiet and feeling that voice come inside me,” Ms Amati said.

She said she then experienced her face smiling without being in control of the action.

“I remember that smile, the smile that was not mine,” she said. “A sinister smile that plastered my face that I couldn’t control. And I black [sic] out.”

Amati added, “To think I’d put other people’s lives in danger made me feel so ashamed of myself. They were innocent. They did nothing to deserve what happened…If I could take every one of those blows and put them on myself instead of someone else I would have done it a thousand times over.”

That’s all the most recent information on the case.

Now, while I was perusing the internet for more information, I ran across an old Daily Mail article on the story. It’s titled, “Transgender woman, 24, accused of bludgeoning two innocent people with an axe at a 7-Eleven was born as a boy named Karl – but had a sex change two years ago in Thailand to become Evie.”

I started to read it but noticed an update a note at the top, which read:

NOTE: The Press Council has decided this article partly breached its Standards of Practice. Read the full adjudication here.

Say what?

So I looked into it. For starters, what the heck is the Press Council?

The first is the administration of an agreed Code of Practice and the investigation of complaints from members of the public about editorial content in the media. The second is the defence of press freedom. Some Press Councils fulfil explicitly only the first function – but in doing so must balance the rights of the individual and the rights of the press to freedom of expression.

Press Councils are self-regulatory bodies set up by the media themselves – although they are normally given a high degree of operational independence in order to maintain public confidence. They oversee Codes of Practice which set out both professional standards for journalists, and a set of rules under which people featured in the news media can complain if something is inaccurate or intrusive.

These Codes generally contain ethical rules that are over and above legal requirements.

Press Councils represent a form of corporate responsibility which allow people to complain for free and without legal representation, and can help generate trust in the quality of news.

Then I read the Press Council’s Actual Complaint. It’s lengthy, but basically, its accusing the Daily Mail of being unfair, because the story harps too much on the fact that the ax attacker is transgender.

Here’s a slice of the complaint:

The article reported that when the woman first appeared in court, she requested supplies of an oestrogen booster and a testosterone suppressor, “both used in male to female transitions”.
The article was later updated to note that the woman’s lawyer since attributed the attack to a “combination of sex change drugs and antidepressants”; that it “was widely speculated on social media that the transgender drugs may have contributed to the attack, especially when combined with the antidepressants she also requested”; and that “[t]here was wide public concern about whether [she] would be housed in a male or female prison … before it was known if she was pre- or post-sex change operation”.

The Council asked the publication to comment on whether, given the significant coverage of the woman’s transgender status and transition history and the coverage of family and friends not involved in the alleged crime, it took reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance as required by General Principle 3; to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest as required by General Principle 6; and to avoid identifying relatives or friends of people accused of a crime unless such references are necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings, according to Privacy Principle 6.

The publication said it was aware prior to publication of suggestions that the woman’s transition may have influenced the alleged attack, which was carried out around the second anniversary of the surgery, and that this was a factor in deciding to include details of the surgery in the article. It also said after the woman requested transgender drugs, speculation arose about whether these may have contributed to the attack, and referred to its later report that the woman’s lawyers had raised a defence based on the effect of the drugs, so the article was updated to reflect this.

It said all the information in the article about her transgender background had been made publicly available by the woman on Facebook and the article reported on her transition in a positive way, including comments from supportive family and friends.

As to publishing the Facebook posts of the woman’s girlfriend, the names of the girlfriend and sister, and photographs of them as well as her mother and an unidentified man, the publication said these had been publicly available on Facebook for two years and it had tried to contact the woman’s girlfriend before publication for comment, but had been unsuccessful.

And here’s the conclusion. Emphasis mine:

The Council is satisfied that the woman’s transgender status was suggested by her request in court to be supplied with certain drugs. The factual material published about the woman’s background appears to have been obtained from her public Facebook page and there is no suggestion it was not presented in an accurate manner. While the Council is concerned about the many prominent references to the woman’s transgender status, especially in the headline and sub-headlines, the Council is satisfied on the material available to it that reasonable steps were taken by the publication to report the factual material with fairness and balance. Accordingly, the Council concludes there was no breach of General Principle 3.

In considering whether the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress, prejudice or a risk to health or safety, the Council considers it is appropriate to take into account the nature of the alleged crime as reported, that the woman had requested transgender-related and anti-depressant drugs, and that the personal background material was made available publicly by the woman on Facebook. While the Council is concerned about the extensive material in the article about her transgender status, given the nature of the alleged crime and information about the drugs being taken by the woman, the Council does not consider the publication breached General Principle 6 in this respect. Notwithstanding this, the Council considers that the Australian community may be at an early stage of understanding the appropriate approach to reporting transgender issues, and there is a need for caution and sensitivity in reporting on such matters.

However, the publication included photographs of and the full name of her partner, as well as some of her personal Facebook comments. It also named the woman’s sister and included photographs of her as well as their mother and an unidentified man with them. It was not necessary to include this level of detail and in any case, the faces of the woman’s friends and family could have been pixilated in the photographs. There was no sufficient public interest that justified doing otherwise. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or risk to health or safety, and General Principle 6 was breached in this respect. For the same reasons, Privacy Principle 7 was also breached.

As you can see, the council was legitimately offended that the Daily Mail told the story. It would’ve preferred for the publication to leave out all the parts about the attacker being trans.

I just can’t get over it. You know how much time and energy the Press Council probably spent whining about this? The fact of the matter remains: A TRANSGENDER woman ATTACKED PEOPLE with an ax. I don’t care what the new excuse is. People deserve to know the ENTIRE story, but the Press Council is more concerned about the “fairness,” because, you know. He’s trans.

Ridiculous.