At the end of 2023 and in April 2024, the Haarlems Dagblad published a series of articles on the owner of a Haarlem nightclub who was a suspect of assault and rape of two under-age girls. The owner reacted by suing two entities of Mediahuis, the publisher of Haarlems Dagblad. He argued that his name should not have been published and that several articles were unlawful, and claimed damages, among other things.
In its judgment dated 11 December 2024, the Court of Amsterdam made short shrift of the argument of the nightclub owner. The decision contains relevant considerations for the press practice. Below we will discuss the most important points.
Regarding the mention of the first name and first letter of the surname of the nightclub owner, the Court considered it relevant that Haarlems Dagblad, in its first publication about the nightclub owner, had only mentioned that an owner of a nightclub in Haarlem was suspected of assault and rape of two under-age girls. The daily newspaper had copied this information one on one from a police press release. Haarlems Dagblad posted the article on its Facebook page and then readers mentioned the name of the night club and the owner in reactions below the report. The Court considered the following:
‘Only after that, Haarlems Dagblad adjusted its reporting by mentioning‘ [name of catering establishment 1]’ and ‘[claimant]’. The full name of [claimant] was not mentioned, but only his first name and the first letter of his surname. This is the common and generally accepted way of publishing names of suspects. So there is a limited breach of the [claimant’s] privacy’ (ground for the judgment 4.5).
The Court continued:
‘Given the social importance of accusations of sexually transgressive behaviour, it is in this case acceptable to publish limited additional information (not the full name, but the name of [name catering establishment 1] and the first name and first letter of the surname), even though that would make it easier to identify [the claimant] as a suspect.’ (ground for the decision 4.7)
Besides, the articles of April 2024 were not considered unlawful by the Court. Regarding the editorial of 6 April 2024, the Court held that: ‘The comments in the article – in coherence with the police news report and the ongoing criminal investigation – is sufficiently supported by the statements of the various persons to be allowed to publish in this form.’ (ground for the decision 4.8)
The Court also held that the newspaper has sufficiently acted as a messenger: ‘In the article, Haarlems Dagblad has made it sufficiently clear that these are statements of persons involved, given the use of formulations like “according to”, “tells”, “recollects”, “looks back on” and the use of quotation marks to make clear that they are quotes. The article contains summaries of statements and was presented in a sufficiently factual way. In addition, the set-up of the article and the use of formulations like “around 2005”, “in those years” and “in that period” makes clear that the statements relate to events of years ago, and not to the two charges brought in 2022.’ (ground for the decision 4.12)
What is more, Haarlems Dagblad offered the nightclub owner sufficient opportunity to give a reaction, and has mentioned his reactions in the article as far as they were relevant, the Court wrote (in ground 4.14).
Regarding the articles of 19/20 April 2024, the Court held that – as opposed to what the nightclub owner alleged – they do not create the impression that the nightclub owner personally provided alcohol to minors. In addition, the heading of one of the articles are admittedly ‘a bit of an over-simplification’, but the Court continues: ‘However, the starting point is that a heading is intended to attract the reader’s attention and can therefore be less nuanced and more concise than the actual article’. (ground for the decision 4.17)
The claims will be denied and the nightclub owner is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings of Haarlems Dagblad.
The judgment emphasizes the social importance of accusations of sexually transgressive behaviour and shows, among other things, how media can perform their messenger function carefully.
This article was previously published on www.mediareport.nl.
