Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Suicide Reporting; or, The System Doesn't Work

42 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • andin,

    As a society, we fall upon the criminal law far too often as a ‘solution’ to a societal issue, without asking

    When did suicide get criminalised. OH Yes that right, by the religious, centuries ago.
    So when are we going to stop production and sit down and work through ways which would fit us, all the other species on the planet, and the planet itself. To survive long term into the future.
    Thats right! Never. So forward looking of us isnt it!

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1891 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    (spelling nit: "Cheif Coroner")

    I guess I'm confused reading section 71 quoted above, all those ands would imply to me that you can publish what you like AFTER the first (or only) inquiry has completed - can you explain how one (as a naive non-lawyer) should read that

    After a coroner’s finding (if any) has been released, only the name, address and occupation of the person concerned and the fact that the coroner found the death to be a suicide can be made public without a coroner’s permission.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2623 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Epic stuff.
    ...a truly Kafkaesque process!

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Paul Campbell,

    I’m confused by the same thing. To me the Act pretty much gives a precondition of the coroner’s permission being required, which is finished as soon as an “inquiry into the death has been completed”. It’s written as a backwards “if”, which is often confusing. It might have been clearer if it said:
    “If (a) and (b) and (c), then (1)”.

    I’m interested in the views of non-lawyer readers, but if that was all I had to go on, I think I would conclude that permission to report on further details about a death believed to be self-inflicted was something that could only be sought after an inquest had finished.

    As a non-lawyer reader, I can say that my conclusion would have been that it didn’t need to be sought after that point. Perhaps that explains why it never has been sought from Chief Coroner Neil MacLean.

    ETA: Soz, you meant if the "chapter headed “Courts with special media provisions” were all we had to go on. Yes, I'd read it the way you said, then. But reading the Act itself, I would think that chapter is contradicting the Act somewhat.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to BenWilson,

    But reading the Act itself, I would think that chapter is contradicting the Act somewhat.

    Yep. That was what I was trying to get at. You read the guidance, and it doesn't even look like you can get permission until after the finding has been made.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    From that snippet it looks that way. But the Act trumps the guidance, doesn't it? Newspapers have surely hit this hundreds of times, got their lawyers to look at the law, and then realized that it's clear enough in the Act itself that the highly counter-intuitive idea that coroners have a perpetual right to deny freedom of reporting of any suicide is counter-intuitive because it's false.

    In other words, they got the guide wrong. They should fix it. But they don't seem to be ruthlessly applying it anyway (because they couldn't).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    I realise your post mostly highlights the insane complexity of dealing with the law as it stands and you've done a really good job of highlighting why the law needs to be refashioned so that it works as intended.

    But behind this law is a real problem. Last year more people died by suicide than died on our roads. Yes that's abuse of bolding and yes I'm becoming tedious and boring on this issue.

    I don't agree with you that the evidence show reporting of suicides increases attempts, I strongly doubt that there is anything more than anecdotal evidence to that effect and a statistically sound meta analysis is needed before I'd be comfortable with that conclusion.

    But even if the evidence stands up to examination it is pretty clear that the policy of hiding suicide underneath a cloying blanket of law has not worked to reduce the loss of life. We report road deaths in great detail and that combined with the application of tremendous creative talents in the advertising industry has actually reduced our road toll. Perhaps it is time to take the same approach with suicide. It won't be simple, there won't be one approach that fits all the reasons for suicide but that is not a reason to sit back behind the law and ignore those deaths.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to BenWilson,

    But the Act trumps the guidance, doesn’t it? Newspapers have surely hit this hundreds of times, got their lawyers to look at the law, and then realized that it’s clear enough in the Act itself that the highly counter-intuitive idea that coroners have a perpetual right to deny freedom of reporting of any suicide is counter-intuitive because it’s false.

    I am confident you need permission to report the particulars of a self-inflicted death before the Coroner has made a decision.

    The problem with the guidance is that it doesn’t even look like you can get permission.

    The problem with the law is that you do need permission.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Raymond A Francis,

    Is it true that we can sheet this home to Jim Anderton
    I know he had a personal interest in the subject and a google search shows that is a constant meme that he drove it, I just can't find the proof
    Certainly as a policy it has not helped

    45' South • Since Nov 2006 • 578 posts Report Reply

  • izogi, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    We report road deaths in great detail and that combined with the application of tremendous creative talents in the advertising industry has actually reduced our road toll.

    Not to mention being a strong argument for increased funding for roads. I don’t want to politicise this aspect too much away from Graeme’s topic, but consider how the public’s sense of priorities might be influenced if suicides were as visible as road deaths.

    Also from Graeme:

    Almost five months spent trying to republish publicly available information, and [—snip—] I was now prohibited from telling you about the existence of a Coroner’s Court in Christchurch.

    Ouch. In my limited dealings with the office, it took much less for me to come away thinking it was unnecessarily hard to deal with. (For me it was simply having to post a physical written request to get a particular Inquest Report which interested me. This was in about 2010. Maybe I'm spoiled by internet. It could be easier now.)

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 1142 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    Now I'm even more confused.

    I am confident you need permission to report the particulars of a self-inflicted death before the Coroner has made a decision.

    Check! That looks what what both the Act and the guide says.

    The problem with the guidance is that it doesn't even look like you need permission.

    You lost me there. The guidance is:

    Only the name and age of the deceased may be made public before the publication of a coroner’s finding. After a coroner’s finding (if any) has been released, only the name, address and occupation of the person concerned and the fact that the coroner found the death to be a suicide can be made public without a coroner’s permission.

    That's saying you must not say anything more than that the person aged x died, before the finding. Pretty clear that you need permission to go further (although I can't tell if even that is possible). Afterwards you can say it was a suicide without the coroner's permission. That's what I'm reading. You appear to need permission to say more than the very basic facts, though.

    The problem with the law is that you do need permission.

    Beforehand, yes. Afterward, it doesn't seem to say anything, by which I presume the standard interpretation is that it's permitted. What is not prohibited is allowed. So I see the guide claiming more restriction than what the law seems to actually say. It seems to say that you can't talk about how they killed themselves, without permission, even though the report presumably lays that out in detail.

    But again, IANAL. Just proficient in English.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Robyn Gallagher,

    In recent months, I've seen the Herald do something very interesting. When there's a story involving a suicide they can't mention, the article proceeds as per usual ("no suspicious circumstances", etc), but at the end there's a list called "Where to get help" with the contact numbers of various agencies such as Lifeline and the Suicide Crisis Helpline. Here's one example, here's another. The list is also used in follow-up articles where the coroner has ruled the death a suicide, and in articles where the topic of suicide is discussed (like this one with Don Brash recounting a painful relationship breakdown, or the many articles discussing the Charlotte Dawson situation).

    In one sense, it might seem like a sneaky way of the Herald mentioning the S-word without directly using it in the article, but this does also seem like a very helpful thing to do for readers.

    Since Nov 2006 • 1946 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to BenWilson,

    Pretty clear that you need permission to go further (although I can’t tell if even that is possible). Afterwards you can say it was a suicide without the coroner’s permission. That’s what I’m reading. You appear to need permission to say more than the very basic facts, though.

    After a Coroner has declared a death a suicide, you can publicly state it was a suicide.

    You can get permission to state more, such as the means used.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to BenWilson,

    Check! That looks what what both the Act and the guide says.

    The problem with the guidance is that it doesn’t even look like you need permission.

    I meant to say, I think:

    The problem is that that guidance makes it look like you can’t even ask for permission until after the decision is made (ie it looks like the pre-decision ban is total).

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    Right. But do you really need permission to state more? After the inquiry into the death is completed, it seems that s71 doesn't apply any more because s71(c) no longer holds. Does the guide have the force of law behind it in that case? Which law?

    It would seem pretty odd if permission was needed in perpetuity. So odd that I'm not surprised at the observation that no one has asked permission of the Chief coroner in 30 years, and he's never taken anyone to task for that.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    The problem is that that guidance makes it look like you can’t even ask for permission until after the decision is made (ie it looks like the pre-decision ban is total).

    OK. Whereas that's not what the law says in any detail? It says you have to have the coroner's authority. But presumably the coroner is totally free to set their own policy around what they will actually give permission for, if their authority is absolute on it up until that point.

    So it's not incorrect to say that they won't let you say more than that x person died. That might very well be their policy, and a sensible one too. They are not, themselves, necessarily sure until that point. Digging deeper, they may make a discovery that throws doubt onto it being a suicide. Perhaps they don't find powder residue on the hand of the person who is believed to have shot themselves. Or maybe the angle of entry needs a lot more examination before they can be sure it even could be done alone. Perhaps they need to check the ballistics report to make sure the bullet even came from the gun in the deceased's hand. Lots of care needed.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • James Green, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    We report road deaths in great detail and that combined with the application of tremendous creative talents in the advertising industry has actually reduced our road toll.

    It's very likely that the road toll has decreased for entirely different reasons. The evidence for the advertising having much to do with it is near nil.

    I've also looked over some of the research on suicide, and it is deeply, deeply difficult to interpret. I'm not an epidemiologist, but I spend a lot of time reading statistics, and I'd be really really hard pressed to be confident of making any conclusions.

    Limerick, Ireland • Since Nov 2006 • 703 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to BenWilson,

    After the inquiry into the death is completed, it seems that s71 doesn’t apply any more because s71(c) no longer holds.

    Section 71(1) applies before a coroner's finding is released.

    Section 71(2) applies after a coroner's finding is released.

    It would seem pretty odd if permission was needed in perpetuity. So odd that I’m not surprised at the observation that no one has asked permission of the Chief coroner in 30 years, and he’s never taken anyone to task for that.

    His comment was about no-one ever asking in the circumstances where I asked (ie after a high profile death presumed to be a suicide).

    And yes, permission is needed in perpetuity if you want to disclose information beyond that allowed in section 71(2).

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to James Green,

    I’d be really really hard pressed to be confident of making any conclusions

    As would I. The suicides are from multiple causes and much of the data is difficult to obtain. And yes it may be questionable whether the creative minds at the advertising agencies can do anything other than make themselves more money, but I'd like to at least try.

    What is clear is that the aim of the law, as confusing as its implementation may be, is to reduce suicides. In particular, the anecdotal copycat suicides. Yet the rate of suicides in NZ has not decreased as a result of this law.

    So I'd rather not have many lawyers sitting around figuring out how to make this law function more efficiently at all. Because the law itself is failing to reduce suicides. Time to try something different, rather than polishing the turd that we have at present.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    Aha! Cheers – you only quoted a small snippet of the subsection of the Act, I’d been presuming it was all of it. I finally see your problem, I think, why you went to all this trouble.

    Most interesting that they can only release info if it’s not compromising of public safety. It’s hard to think of circumstances where it would endanger public safety to give details about a suicide. A murder, definitely, particularly a political one. Supporters could go ape-shit about that. But I’d almost think it would be compellingly in the interests of public safety to convince the public that a suicide had happened, if there were doubts and wide speculation of a murder.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Joanna,

    I was really surprised to read actually here on Public Address how Charlotte Dawson had killed herself, and at the time I wondered if that was actually legal, so this post has cleared it up for me (given that it occurred overseas).

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 746 posts Report Reply

  • James Green, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    And yes it may be questionable whether the creative minds at the advertising agencies can do anything other than make themselves more money, but I'd like to at least try.

    Given the abject failures to use anything remotely evidence based with smoking, speeding, drink driving, drug and alcohol harm, I'd like to see some actual science involved in the process. I don't hold out a lot of hope, though there are possible a couple of recent drink driving ads that might have some hope of working.

    What is clear is that the aim of the law, as confusing as its implementation may be, is to reduce suicides. In particular, the anecdotal copycat suicides. Yet the rate of suicides in NZ has not decreased as a result of this law.

    I don't see how we can know that the law hasn't prevented a larger increase in the suicide rate. However, I'm really all for some action. Unfortunately (or not), I didn't copy my internet arguments folder over to my new work computer, where I would find most of my references.

    Limerick, Ireland • Since Nov 2006 • 703 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Sp if the law is widely flouted and never enforced, why is it even on the books?

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    So if the law is widely flouted and never enforced, why is it even on the books?

    Well, a lot has changed since 2006.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Morgan Nichol, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,

    here's another.

    I wondered if that would be one of the examples. I think about him every single day.

    Auckland CBD • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.