Saturday Star’s article “School bully pepper sprays bus pupils” (25/10/08, p.7[1]) is one to get mad about because it violates the Criminal Procedure Act and fails to consider the best interests of the child.

The article records an incident that happened on a bus transporting children from various primary and high schools in Johannesburg to their homes. According to the article, a 17-year old boy pepper sprayed an 11-year old girl who refused to hand over her pocket money to him. He also pepper sprayed the girl’s friends and other children who tried to stop him. Consequently, five pupils were hospitalized for serious respiratory problems and the boy was charged with assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Section 154 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act No.51 of 1977 states:

  “No person shall publish in any manner whatever any information which reveals or may reveal the identity of an accused under the age of eighteen years or of a witness at criminal proceedings who is under the age of eighteen years…”

In interpreting this section, courts have held that criminal proceedings start the moment a charge has been laid or where it is clear that a crime involving a child has been committed (UNICEF and Media Monitoring Project, 2003:58 [2]).

It is also the case that identity may be revealed directly or by “reasonable inference” [3]. For instance, a child may be indirectly identified by publishing the names and details of their school, home or teacher [4].

Saturday Star therefore contravened Section 154 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act through carrying a photograph of the pepper sprayed girl and identifying the child witnesses in their article.

By identifying the children who were victims and/or witnesses, the reporter also fails to consider their best interests. Including the names of the child witnesses, their surnames and the schools they attend in the article makes it possible to easily identify and locate the children, which could put them at risk of further bullying. For this reason, the Media Monitoring Project (MMP) has blocked out the names and faces of the children to protect their identities.

Taking into account the interests of each child is not just an ethical issue, but a principle contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which South Africa is a signatory to [5], and Section 28 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of South Africa (1996) .

Saturday Star would have protected the best interests of each child had the victims and/or witnesses been quoted but not identified.

MMP acknowledges the ethical dilemmas journalists reporting on children are confronted with. However, It must be reiterated that however diverse and complex these may be, journalists must report within the confines of the law (Media Monitoring Project, 2008:2 [7]) and place the interests of each child above any other consideration (Media Monitoring Project, 2008:3 [8]).

_______________

Footnotes

  1. MMP has concealed the names and faces of the children to protect their identities.
2. UNICEF and Media Monitoring Project. 2003. All sides of the story. Reporting on children: A journalist’s handbook.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. See Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.1989 (entered into force 1990).United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: Geneva, Switzerland (Article 3).
6. See Media Monitoring Project. 2008. Editorial Guidelines and Principles for Reporting on Children in the Media: A Snapshot of Children in Zambia News. Media Monitoring Project: Johannesburg.
7. Ibid.