David Bain and his wife Liz now live on a rural property near Cambridge. Photo / Jason Boa
David Bain and his wife Liz now live on a rural property near Cambridge. Photo / Jason Boa
The NZ Media Council has ruled that reporting the name of one of David Bain’s children and their ages was a breach of the council’s principle that deals with the treatment of children and young people.
David Bain, through his lawyer, complained about a story The Bain murders 30 yearson: David Bain living under new name with family in Waikato published by the NZ Herald on June 20, 2024. The article referred to his children, their gender, years of birth and referred to one of them by name. It also noted that Mr Bain had changed his name, lived on a rural property near Cambridge and that his wife taught at a local school.
Mr Bain said the coverage was harmful and that he and his family sought to be left alone. The reporting had undermined his family’s right to privacy, creating stress and harm, and destroyed the effort they had put into being able to live in a place they felt safe and could live “fairly anonymously”.
The Herald countered that the Bain case, in which Mr Bain was found guilty of the murder of family members and later acquitted, was one of the most debated court verdicts in New Zealand. The Herald denied there was a breach of privacy. There was a strong public interest in the case and Mr Bain was a public figure, even if he now sought to live a private life. Mr Bain had previously sold his story, his home was not directly identified, and his wife’s profession had been previously reported. The references to the children added no new information to what was in the public domain.
The Media Council agreed with the NZ Herald that the references to the name Mr Bain uses, the area where he lived and his wife’s profession were generally known and did not breach the family’s privacy.
However, the Council felt that naming one of the children and reporting their years of birth was a breach of Principle (3) relating to the treatment of children and young people. This principle makes it clear that children are deserving of special consideration. Even if the details about the children had been revealed previously, this did not automatically mean it was appropriate to repeat them in the context of this report. The children have done nothing noteworthy and there was no public interest in reporting the name of one and their ages. It was not relevant to the matter reported and was unnecessary.
