★★★★★ 0/5

Family sues over privacy invasion after quad bike accident

The family of Molly Lord, who died tragically in a quad bike accident last July, is suing Seven and WIN Networks.

13
Leave a comment

5445The family of Molly Lord, who died tragically in a quad bike accident last July, is suing Seven and WIN Networks and the Illawarra Mercury for breaching their confidence and invading their privacy.

The family has sought apologies and justice ever since alleging Seven and the Mercury trespassed on their family farm, Newton Park, to take pictures.

Last year a social media campaign supported Linda Goldspink-Lord and husband Peter after a gross invasion of privacy. The incident become discussed on Media Watch and has become a test of the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s privacy guidelines on media coverage of grief and death.

The family has campaigned for ‘Molly’s Law’ to make it illegal for media to intrude on grieving families.

It is alleged Seven’s reporter Paul Kadak and a sound technician walked on to their farm without permission and did not leave when asked.

The Daily Telegraph reports, Seven said its crew was there under an “implied licence”. It conceded Kadak approached the family home where he asked three people if they would be interviewed, but denies “a reasonable person” would have found its broadcast “highly offensive” or an “unreasonable intrusion” to have triggered the family’s distress.

Footage broadcast on the Mercury website was also re-aired on WIN. .

The family also wants compensation for distress caused when Seven’s helicopter flew low over their property to film Molly’s body.

The groups have been ordered to mediation.

13 Responses

  1. As Wilmawalrus said, this happens all the time. Bowling up to bereaved families, shoving microphones in their faces for an interview. Now it’s probably not done as crassly as that, but I can’t imagine anyone in such a situation would even want to talk to the media, but they do.
    And it’s always the same conversation. We don’t need to know how they feel – we’ve got a pretty good idea!

  2. @wilmawalrus – me too. I think it’s disgusting and you have to wonder about what sort of person thinks that it’s ok to invade people’s privacy and publish/broadcast their faces and personal details.

    It’s bad enough when it’s done to someone who’s been charged with a crime but is yet to go to court, but when you have mobs of media representatives stalking you (as they did to that poor girl who had the fake collar-bomb), it makes me angry.

  4. @David: “Airspace schmairspace”. Love your work.

    And I totally agree.

    Unfortumately, it has been shown again and again that ACMA is not a toothless tiger as even a toothless one can have falsies and do some damage.

    ACMA is useless and a joke. And not even a funny one 🙁

  5. It infuriates me no end when people are interviewed or filmed at times of accidents, crisis or deaths – no one needs to see people being wheeled into hospitals, or doorstopped after someone has died. It is inappropriate, insensitive and cruel. I hope Molly’s family achieve their goal and that “Molly’s Law” is brought into force. It can’t happen too soon, really.

  7. what i don’t get is why this story was needed in the first place, she died in a tragic accident, what business is that of the viewing public? very cruel on the family.

    but i do agree with pertinax that in a legal sense they don’t seem to have much of a case, being insensitive is not a crime, they are just setting themselves up for defeat which can’t be healthy for the grieving process.

    leaving it as a public shaming campaign would be more appropriate, reputation damage is more effective than a fine for a media business.

    1. Networks argue they were reporting on the dangers of quad bikes, that is in the public interest, but the methodology was not. The information can be relayed without the need to impact on a family at this deeply personal time.

      Privacy rules of ACMA need to be enforced to ensure this never happens again.

  10. You can’t own airspace and have no rights to restrict movement of aircraft. There have been numerous lawsuit trying to use trespass and privacy to stop aircraft and they have failed. The case law is clear on that.

    It is also legal to film from public land. Otherwise anyone taking a snap with a mobile phone camera would be a criminal. The only restriction is you are not allowed to take obscene photos.

    The only thing Channel 7 seem guilty of is refusing to leave private property when asked. They are probably guilt of trespass and would face a likely $500 fine.

Leave a Reply