Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The New Zealand Media Council has upheld a complaint against Radio New Zealand (RNZ) for breaching two Principles in an article about the Tom Phillips child abduction case. The ruling found RNZ in breach of Principles (2) Privacy and (3) Children and Young People, with a minority dissenting.
The article, published on September 12, was titled Who decided Tom Phillips was safe enough to leave alone with kids? It examined systemic failures that allowed Phillips continued care of his children despite prior concerns. To illustrate a pattern of risk in custody disputes, RNZ referenced a similar case involving Alan Langdon, who abducted his six-year-old daughter in 2016. The child’s distinctive first name was included.
Complainant *X, the teen’s legal guardian, argued that naming the child – now 15 – was unnecessary and harmful, causing emotional distress and risking embarrassment among peers. *X said the reference retraumatised the teen and violated her right to privacy. She initially asked RNZ to stop naming the child in such stories, but the request was not acted on until a formal complaint clarified her guardianship role.
RNZ defended its decision, citing the public nature of the Langdon case and its relevance to the Phillips story. It noted that the child’s name had been widely reported during the abduction and in subsequent interviews. However, RNZ later removed the name, acknowledging that circumstances had changed and that the request came from a family member.
Principle (3) of the Media Council principles provides that editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests of a child. The Media Council ruled that republishing the name nine years later served no exceptional public interest and unnecessarily revived a traumatic event to the child’s detriment. The unusual first name meant the immediate identification of the child by an informed reader.
The widespread publication of the name at the time of her abduction when she was five was no reason for bringing her to the attention of the public and a whole new group of people when she was 15. The Media Council emphasised that editors must demonstrate a “exceptional degree of public interest” to override a child’s welfare. The Council noted that the article retained its integrity after the name was removed, proving it was not essential to the story.
A minority of members dissented, arguing that the name appeared only once, deep in the article, and that RNZ acted promptly once the family connection was clear. They viewed the decision as a matter of editorial discretion rather than a breach of Principles.
The ruling underscores the need for heightened sensitivity when reporting on children, even in cases previously publicised.
The full Media Council ruling can be found here – *X against Radio New Zealand