Investigation Report No. 3093 - acma.gov.au/media/Broadcasting... · Web viewThe ACMA considers that the introduction and premise of the segment set the ... Princesses; [P] and

Investigation Report No. 3093File No. ACMA2013/1370

Licensee Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd

Station SAS Adelaide

Type of Service Commercial Television

Name of Program Today Tonight (program and promotions)

Dates of Broadcasts 10 June 2013 (program)7-10 June 2013 (promotions)

Relevant Code Clauses 4.3.1, 4.3.5 and 4.5 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010

Date finalised 19 December 2013Decision No breach of clause 4.3.1 [factual accuracy]

No breach of clause 4.3.5 [privacy]No breach of clause 4.5 [factual accuracy in promotions]

ACMA Investigation Report 3093 – Today Tonight broadcast by SAS Adelaide on 7-10 June 2013

The complaintOn 20 August 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding a segment of the program Today Tonight broadcast on 10 June 2013 by Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd, the licensee of SAS. The complaint also relates to two promotions for the segment broadcast in the four days leading up the segment (7, 8, 9 and 10 June 2013). The complaint was brought by MK on behalf of himself and his brother AK (together referred to as the Ks)

The complainant submitted that both the segment and promotions contained factual inaccuracies and failed to fairly represent his and his family’s viewpoints. The complainant also considers that the segment contained information that breached his family’s privacy.

The ACMA has considered the complaint against clauses 4.3.1 (factual accuracy and fair representation of viewpoints), 4.5 (factual accuracy of promotions) and 4.3.5 (use of material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs) of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code).

The programToday Tonight is a 30-minute long current affairs program broadcast on weeknights at 6.30pm.

The segment broadcast on 10 June 2013 ran for nearly 10 minutes and reported on the Ks claims to be members of Poland’s nobility, as well as AK’s purported claim to be a ‘war hero’. The segment featured the viewpoints of several interviewees who disputed the Ks’ claims including:

A, the estranged sister in-law of MK B, a senior member of Adelaide’s Polish community Mr Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, introduced by the segment as an ‘expert’ on royal titles Lord Richard Bridgeman, introduced during the segment as the 7th Earl of Bradford,

another expert Bill Hobson, an investigator of military imposters

A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.

The promotions (Promotion 1 and Promotion 2) were broadcast in the lead up to the segment. Each promotion included excerpts of interviews from the segment.

A transcript of each of the promotions is set out in the reasons below.

AssessmentThis investigation is based on a copy of the broadcast provided by the licensee and:

the original complaint (submitted via the Free TV Australia complaints portal); correspondence between the complainant and the licensee; the complaint made to the ACMA; and the licensee’s submissions to the ACMA.

Other relevant sources are identified in the report.

ACMA Investigation Report 3093 – Today Tonight - SAS Adelaide - 7-10 June 2013 2

‘Ordinary, reasonable’ viewer testIn assessing content against the Codes, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ viewer.

Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ reader (or listener or viewer) to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.1

In considering compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning conveyed, it then determines whether the Code has been breached.

Issue 1: Presentation of factual material and representation of viewpointsRelevant Code Clause

News and Current Affairs Programs

4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:

4.3.1 must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program;

4.3.1.1 An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.

Complainant’s submissionsThe complainant’s submissions are set out at Attachment B. The complaint is concerned with two aspects of the broadcast:

Claims that the K’s titles were invalid; and

Claims that the Ks had benefitted financially from their titles.

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee’s submissions are set out at Attachment C.

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.

Reasons

1 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167


AccuracyAn assessment of clause 4.3.1 of the Code first requires the ACMA to determine whether content is being presented as fact or opinion. This assessment is informed by the considerations at Attachment D. Clause 4.3.1.1 further requires the ACMA to have regard to the context of the segment broadcast in its entirety (emphasis added) in making this decision.

In his complaint to the station, the complainant alleged:

Today Tonight were provided with a 5 page letter from our lawyer on Monday 10 June 2013 [prior to the broadcast], proving our titles and disproving assertions made by [A], which they chose not to use to its full advantage.

The letter referred to by the complainant was provided to the licensee prior to the broadcast of the segment by the complainant’s legal representatives, in response to a list of questions that had been emailed to the Ks by the program. The letter stated:

The legitimacy of these titles was recognised by the International Tribunal of Justice by Arbitration, when it handed down an Arbitral Award on 25 September 2008 (a notarised copy of which I have sighted), which made reference to my clients’ paternal and maternal lineages, and resolved that [AK] was the ‘current possessor of the nobiliary titles of Prince from Poland and of Count of the Roman Sacred Empire’, and that [MK] was the ‘current possessor of the nobiliary title of Prince from Poland’, and acknowledged the right accompanying their titles of fons honorum (i.e. the right to grant personal and honorary privileges through, for example, and Order of Merit).

Legitimacy of the titles

The ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood from the broadcast that the Ks claimed to be descendants of Polish royalty, and that the two experts and A were sceptical of the claims. The ACMA notes that at the outset, the segment presented two opposing positions when the presenter stated the following:

[I]t’s the ingredient of most fairytale stories – the commoner who magically turns into a Prince or Princess. Well, one Adelaide family believes the fairytale has come true for them. Brothers [MK] and [AK] [family name] claim they’re the direct descendants of Polish royalty, and have taken on the titles of Princes. However, many experts are highly sceptical of their claims of nobility; even a family member has now come forward, attacking the legitimacy of her blue-blood rellies. So, Princes or pretenders?

The remainder of the segment questioned the validity of the Ks’ titles and AK’s claims to be a ‘war hero’. The ACMA considers that the introduction and premise of the segment set the tone for the remainder of it, and that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood that the assertions by the Ks were contested, and that what followed about the Ks were opinions and competing assertions, given that the information had not been presented as unequivocal fact.

This is due to the fact that, aside from the subjective framing in the introduction with the question ‘Princes or Pretenders?’ there were several statements throughout the segment that served to cast a subjective light over each of the claims and allegations being made.

For example, immediately following the introduction to the segment, two experts appeared, giving their perspective that the Ks’ situation was a ‘fantasy’ and a ‘fairytale’. The inclusion of


the following comments in the segment served to further increase the sense that any doubts regarding the credibility of the Ks and the legitimacy of their titles were expressed as the opinions of individuals (emphasis added by the ACMA):

Mr Heydel-Mankoo : It’s pure fantasy, on so many levels;

Lord Bridgeman : Well, they’re claiming to be something they’re not!

Reporter : She [MK’s sister-in-law] was convinced the princesses had been deceived.

Mr Heydel-Mankoo : There are about 20 odd Polish Princely families and the [K’s], unless, umm, they are unknown to me, and I’ve been in the field for 20 years, simply do not exist as a title family.

Reporter : Mr Heydel-Mankoo... says many of the claims on the [K] brothers’ website are highly dubious; made to look more impressive by their membership of a group called the Order of St Stanislaus.

Lord Bridgeman : They seem to be members of some pretty dubious orders as well, which err, are presumably things they have purchased.

Mr Heydel-Mankoo - When you see the rituals and the elaborate installation ceremonies for some of these errr, orders of chivalry and titles you realise they're simply trying to-to ‘ape’ the Royal Family and what they do and they are really, I think, 'Walter Mitty' characters living in ‘Cloud Cuckoo land’.

The use of such expressions as ‘I think’, ‘pure fantasy’, ‘living in cloud cuckoo land’, ‘they seem to be, presumably, probably, are, of their nature, emotive, hyperbolic and/or opinion.

Accordingly, Mr Heydel-Mankoo and Lord Bridgeman’s comments were clearly presented as opinions or professional viewpoints based on their own experience and knowledge.

Furthermore, it was made evident in the broadcast that the Ks disputed the experts’ opinions:

Reporter - Today the [Ks] sent us a response via their solicitor saying the legitimacy of their titles had been recognised by the International Tribunal of Justice in 2008...

In addition, while this was being narrated by the reporter, the following text appeared on the screen:

The legitimacy of these Titles was recognised by the International Tribunal of Justice by Arbitration, when it handed down an Arbitral Award on 25 September 2008

The Order of St Stanislas exists today, as a charitable entity, governed by a Constitution, and by the laws of the many countries in which it operates

My clients are not aware that [AK] has been ‘exposed online for falsely wearing Military Medals and claiming to have served in the Navy’

For the record, [AK] has never claimed that he was ‘a war hero’

As such, the licensee succeeded in presenting the claims being made in relation to the Ks as competing assertions.

The ACMA acknowledges that the segment adopted a critical stance of the Ks and their claims to noble titles. This was apparent in the language, tenor and tone used to describe them, together with several statements alleging that their titles were dubious. However, the Code does not prohibit current affairs programs from taking a critical stance in matters which


it reports. Provided the information that a licensee presents as unequivocal fact is presented accurately, this does not amount to a breach of the Code.

The ACMA notes that the relevant assertions in the broadcast were:

The Ks have claimed titles on the basis of their ‘paternal and maternal lineages’, (which suggests an historic but not necessarily current title)

The Ks use the title Prince

The expert opinion is that the Ks are not part of the list of current Princely, non-royal families from Poland

Royalty is no longer recognised in Poland.

The ACMA understands that there may be different categories of Polish noble titles and princely titles. On the information before it, the ACMA is not able to determine which titles confer the right to use the title ‘Prince’.

However, the ACMA is satisfied that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood that the comments made by Mr Heydel-Mankoo and Lord Bridgeman were personal viewpoints that had been formed by them in their capacity as experts in the field of noble titles. The ACMA considers that any comments disputing the validity of the Ks’ titles were successfully presented by the licensee as professional expressions of opinion.

Benefiting financially

The complainant also stated that ‘the [family] have never benefitted financially from the titles, nor have they sought recognition from the Polish government or community.’ and that ‘we have not profited by our titles’.

It is acknowledged that the segment contained an underlying suggestion that the Ks had been benefiting in some way (whether financially or by other means) as a result of the use of their claimed titles. The ACMA notes the following statements in this regard:

Presenter - And being a royal does have its benefits.

A - My mother has told me they have had hotel upgrades. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe they've been upgraded to first class on some flights maybe, umm, I mean, the sky is the limit.

Lord Bridgeman - There are all sorts of famous people that they claim to have met and dealt with on the internet. There's pictures of them with umm - Indian Princes and so on and they're obviously using their extremely dubious titles to gain entry into places that they shouldn't be getting entry to.

The ACMA considers that these comments were observations and speculations by the interviewees and were adequately presented as viewpoints. The ACMA is not satisfied that there were any unequivocal factual assertions made that the Ks benefited financially, nor that they have sought recognition from the Polish government or community.

Accordingly, the ACMA considers that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation to the presentation of factual material.


Representation of viewpointsAn assessment concerning the fairness with which a viewpoint is represented is assessed solely on the material broadcast during the segment. In determining whether or not a licensee has represented a viewpoint fairly (having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program), the ACMA takes into account that the Code does not require a licensee to present all material which it obtains. There is no requirement that equal time be give to opposing viewpoints. The requirement is that where a viewpoint is included, it must be represented fairly. A program may omit material, but must not misrepresent a viewpoint in doing so.

The complainant submitted that:

Only about 5% of the story dealt with our side of the story, while the remaining 95% aired the opinions and ‘expert’ advice of people who did not want to provide the truth.

[...]

Today Tonight were provided with a 5 page letter from our lawyer on Monday 10 June 2013, proving our titles through the European Court ruling and disproving assertions made by [A]. Today Tonight only used one paragraph from this letter, while [F] and the ‘experts’ were given 95% of the segment.

The complainant’s viewpoint was presented in the broadcasts as follows:

Reporter - Today the [Ks] sent us a response via their solicitor saying the legitimacy of their titles had been recognised by the International Tribunal of Justice in 2008, their membership of the order of St Stanislaus is purely part of their charitable works and that [AK] knows nothing of the website exposing his military claims.

This was accompanied by the following text on the screen, which were direct quotations from the letter provided to the licensee by the complainant’s legal counsel.




For the record, [AK] has never claimed that he was ‘a war hero’

In this instance, while the licensee did not make reference to other parts of the letter, the ACMA considers that the presence of a clear, uninterrupted statement expressing the Ks’ viewpoint (as well as the extracted citations listed above) was sufficient in bringing about a fair representation of it for the purposes of clause 4.3.1.

Accordingly, the ACMA considers that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation to the fair representation of viewpoints.


Issue 2: PromotionsRelevant Code Clause


4.5 In broadcasting a promotion for a news or current affairs program, a Licensee must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program promotion, and its brevity. A licensee is not required by this clause to portray all aspects or themes of a program or program segment in a program promotion, or to represent all viewpoints contained in the program or program segment.

Complainant’s submissionsThe complainant’s submissions in relation to clause 4.5 can be found at Attachment B. As with clause 4.3.1, the complaint is concerned with two aspects of the promotions:

Claims that his family’s titles were invalid; and

Claims that his family had benefitted financially from their titles.

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee’s submissions in relation to clause 4.3.5 are set out at Attachment C.

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 4.5 of the Code in relation to the broadcast of Promotion 1 and Promotion 2.

Reasons

The promotions contained short experts from the full segment.

Promotion 1 (lasting 23 seconds) in the broadcast contained the following:

Narrator – On Today Tonight - Adelaide’s royal family.

B – I have never heard of them.

Narrator – Travelling the world as Princes and Princesses

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo – There are no royal Polish Princes anywhere in the world.

Narrator – One even claims to be a war hero.

Bill Hobson – He’s a liar, a wannabe and a fraud.

Narrator – And so does one of their own.

A – I don’t know how they’re doing it.

Narrator – On Adelaide’s Today Tonight.

Promotion 2 (lasting 53 seconds) in the broadcast contained the following:

Coming up

Presenter – Coming up next week on the program, Adelaide’s royal family – travelling the world as Princes and Princesses and enjoying the perks of the privileged. One even claims to be a war hero, but the experts say it’s all bunkum.


A: When I first met him, he was just plain [MK].

B: I have never heard of them.

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo: There are no royal Polish Princes anywhere in the world.

Bill Hobson: I’ve investigated it all and I know that he’s a liar, a wannabe and a fraud.

A: This is probably not the first con job they’ve pulled.

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo: There is no evidence of any title having been granted to a [K] family, be it a Countly title or a Princely title.

B: We have never had any [Ks] in any Polish event in Adelaide.

A: I hope it exposes them for what they are.

Presenter: Well until then, have a great long weekend. See you Monday, good night.

The ACMA is satisfied that, notwithstanding the brevity of the promotions, the language, tenor and tone was subjective, indicating the assertions were not presented as unequivocal fact but rather opinions.

As such, the comments are not subject to the accuracy requirements imposed by the Code, and the licensee did not breach clause 4.5.

Issue 3: PrivacyRelevant Code Clause


4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:

4.3.5 must not use material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs, or which invades an individual’s privacy, other than where there is an identifiable public interest reason for the material to be broadcast;

In assessing a segment’s compliance with clause 4.3.5 of the Code, the ACMA also takes into account the ACMA’s ‘Privacy guidelines for broadcasters, 2011’ (the Privacy Guidelines).

Complainant’s submissionsThe complainant submitted:

The [family name] family and friends shown in [the photos of the Ks that featured in the segment and the promotions] – taken off the [K] website, despite being asked not to – had to endure a very stressful and embarrassing weekend of being labelled fakes, liars and wannabes, while the promo ran at least once an hour, which was a complete and utter invasion of privacy.

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee’s submissions are set out at Attachment C.

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 4.3.5 of the Code.


ReasonsIn considering whether the licensee has complied with clause 4.3.5 of the Code, the ACMA must determine:

whether a person was identifiable from the broadcast material; and if so,

whether the broadcast used material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs or which invaded a person’s privacy.

If the answer to both of the above questions is yes, then there has been a breach of clause 4.3.5 of the Code, unless there is an identifiable public interest reason for broadcasting the material.

There is no dispute that the Ks were identified in the segment.

Furthermore, the segment contained information that the complainant considered to pertain to his family’s private affairs, including:

extensive details of the K family and the family structure, including the personal relationships of several of its members;

a number of images of the complainant and his family, including images of them attending formal events and posing for photographs at those events; and

footage of the complainant’s wedding, including images of people attending the ceremony and some footage from the ceremony itself.

The complainant’s concern is that ‘these were taken off the website, despite being asked not to’. While the complainant’s concern is acknowledged, the Privacy Guidelines provide that ‘using material that is already in the public domain will generally not be an invasion of privacy’ and that ‘account will be taken of the nature of the material and the context in which it has been published.’

While the complainant and his family members did not give their consent to the material outlined above being broadcast, that material was in the public domain, due to the fact that it was freely available online, and had been placed online by the complainant’s family themselves.

Any of the material referred to above that was sourced from the K family’s website does not constitute a breach of the Ks’ privacy, due to the fact that they had consciously made the material freely available for public viewing.

Material obtained from the ANZMI website (as referred to in the licensee’s submissions) consists of images of AK posing for photographs at what appear to be public functions. Having regard to the Privacy Guidelines, the ACMA considers that while the Ks had presumably not consented to ANZMI putting these images up on its website, their inclusion in the segment does not constitute a breach of clause 4.3.5, as again, this material was sourced from the public domain.

In the circumstances, the ACMA considers that the licensee has not breached clause 4.3.5 of the Code.


Attachment ATranscript of the segmentPresenter – Good evening, and welcome to the program. First, it’s the ingredient of most fairytale stories – the commoner who magically turns into a Prince or Princess. Well, one Adelaide family believes the fairytale has come true for them. Brothers [MK] and [AK] [family name] claim they’re the direct descendants of Polish royalty, and have taken on the titles of Princes. However, many experts are highly sceptical of their claims of nobility; even a family member has now come forward, attacking the legitimacy of her blue-blood rellies. So, Princes or pretenders? Here’s [reporter’s name].

Lord Bridgeman - A lot of people like to live in a sort of fantasy world, which clearly is one that they invented.

Reporter – This is a royal fairytale like no other.

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo : It’s pure fantasy, on so many levels.

Reporter - A fable featuring Princes and Princesses, but not the type that occupy the castles of Europe. This wannabe regal family lives in suburban Adelaide.

A - When I first met him, he was like, in a polo shirt, ummm - jeans, odd socks and some Dunlop volleys.

Reporter – Meet his Serene Highnesses, Prince [MK] and Prince [AK] [family name], and their Princesses; [P] and [E]. According to their website, brothers [AK and MK] claim they spring from Polish nobility. And, they’re at home in the company of other aristocrats from all over the globe.

Lord Bridgeman - Well, they’re claiming to be something that they aren’t!

A - Anything they’ve sort of come and told you about, I just - would laugh at!

Reporter – [A] is Princess [P]’s twin sister. [P] wed Prince [MK] in a royal ceremony four years ago.

A - At my sister’s hen’s party, the girls: ‘Oh, she’s going to be a Princess, isn’t it wonderful!’ And I was just like: ‘Am I the only one?’

MK (from wedding footage) – That I, [MK], take you, [P]...

Reporter – She was suspicious of her future brother-in-law Prince [MK] from the start.

A - When I first met him he was just plain [MK]. And he was [MK] for quite some time, and then all of a sudden he was - [longer, Polish name], ummm - and then this whole royal thing started. They started buying the royalty magazine, you know the - there’s a magazine and it’s royalty? And he told her that not only was she gonna be in that one day, but that she was also going to meet Princess Mary.

Reporter – Princess Mary?

A - Yes.

Reporter – And your sister believed him?

A - It was like - [clicks fingers] that.


Reporter – What happened at the royal wedding?

A – This royal wedding. We all had this strict dress code; it was black tie, the ladies had to wear - uhhh, dresses or skirts, but they had to be ankle length, you could not have knee length, because of the - royalty that was coming, and it was all supposed to be - blah blah blah. None of the royalty arrived. Next minute, [AK] and [MK] have got cloaks on, and - there’s scrolls in [AK]’s hands, and there’s this - footstool that my sister bought from Loot.

Reporter – From Loot homewares shop?

A – They got my father to kneel on this footstool from Loot, and they got this broadsword, and they started reading out this scroll. And basically, dad was being knighted and made a Baron.

Reporter – She was convinced the Princesses had been deceived. Eventually, [A] became estranged from the royal family.

A – I would like my family to realise that what I have been saying and trying to put across to them has been - has been right, and like to be embraced back within the family.

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo – Poland has non-royal Princes, the equivalent of English Dukes, umm - but the [Ks]’ name will not be found amongst the list. There are about 20-odd Polish Princely families and the [Ks], unless, umm, they are unknown to me, and I’ve been in the field for 20 years, simply do not exist as a title family.

Reporter – Rafe Heydel-Mankoo is a royal commentator and expert in honours and orders. He says many of the claims on the [K] brothers’ website are highly dubious; made to look more impressive by their membership of a group called the Order of St Stanislaus.

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo - The Order of St Stanislaus is an illicit revival of a true order which became extinct in 1917; it is not a true order in the sense that it doesn’t have the authority of a state behind it. It was created by a man who called himself his Serene Highness, Prince Grandmaster Count Juliusz Sokolnicki; one of the more interesting titles you’ll come across, and amongst his membership we have found many people who have titles which are of dubious repute.

Reporter - So it's not surprising then that the [K] brothers are unknown to many members of Adelaide's Polish community including [organisation’s name] volunteer for 40 years, [B].

B - We have never had the [Ks] in any Polish events in Adelaide - the Polish Government doesn't recognise royalties anymore.

Reporter - Their serene highnessess, who declined to appear, say they don't seek to publicise their family history, though their website suggests otherwise when it suits them. And being a royal does have its benefits.

A - My mother has told me they have had hotel upgrades. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe they've been upgraded to first class on some flights maybe, umm, I mean, the sky is the limit.

Reporter - But Prince [AK] doesn't just claim to be amongst the ranks of the Polish royal family but also the ranks of the Royal Australian Navy.

A - I was told that he was in the Navy. I was told that he did a lot of hush, hush umm - operations.


Reporter - But his serene highness has been busted on a military imposters website for fraudulently sporting three prestigious medals, including our second highest honour for bravery, the Star of Courage.

A - Oh, there he is! [Laughter]. That’s gold, look at that.

Bill Hobson - He claimed that errr, he served as a Navy, he was serving as a Navy commander in the first Gulf War and committed an act of err, heroism whilst there and was awarded the Star of Courage and then subsequently the Order of Australia.

Reporter - Any truth in that?

Bill Hobson - No truth whatsoever.

Reporter – Bill Hobson is one of the investigators who track down phony war service wannab - he prefers to remain under cover.

Bill Hobson - He's never - never served in the Navy or in the Defence Force at all, never pulled a boot on.

Reporter – [AK] has admitted he never served in the Navy but even after he was outed by the ANZMI website, he claimed he'd never worn any service medals in public.

Bill Hobson - If you look at the photos on the website they're very clearly wearing them and some other funny medals as well.

Reporter - Amongst his decorations is also the Order of Australia but when you search for his name on the Australian honours website, you get a big fat zero.

Bill Hobson - He's a liar, a wannabe and a fraud.

Lord Bridgeman - They're claiming to be something that they aren't. There are all sorts of famous people that they claim to have met and dealt with on the internet. There's pictures of them with umm - Indian Princes and so on, and they're obviously using their extremely dubious titles to gain entry to places that they shouldn't be getting entry to.

Reporter - Lord Richard Bridgeman is the 7th Earl of Bradford in England. He runs a website called fake titles dot com and exposes wannabes. He says the practice of purchasing fake titles is rife in Australia and New Zealand.

Lord Bridgeman - Incredibly common. I mean, I've come across numerous cases. There's somebody who's actually in court in errr Brisbane - well in Queensland, who - his case is coming up, who has been using his fake title there to run basically Ponzi schemes and also schemes whereby people who are looking for loans put up a lot of money upfront, and then having paid the money, the loan never materialises. And he's used his ‘title’ in ummm - trying to sell that to people.

Reporter: There's no suggestion of anything like that from the [K] brothers, but the Earl is not impressed by their over the top claims.

Lord Bridgeman - They seem to be members of some pretty dubious orders as - as well which errr, are presumably things they've purchased, probably on the internet, to make themselves appear to be an awful lot grander than they actually are.

Reporter - And it's not difficult to purchase a title online. We found one website selling titles of nobility for around $200 each.


A - I could be a Baroness for $256 by the time you leave here today.

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo - When you see the rituals and the elaborate installation ceremonies for some of these errr, orders of chivalry and titles you realise that they're simply trying to - to ‘ape’ the Royal Family and what they do and they are really, I think, 'Walter Mitty' characters living in ‘Cloud Cuckoo land’.

Reporter - Today the [Ks] sent us a response via their solicitor saying the legitimacy of their titles had been recognised by the International Tribunal of Justice in 2008, their membership of the order of St Stanislaus is purely part of their charitable works and that [AK] knows nothing of the website exposing his military claims.

[While this is being narrated by the reporter, a still image of the letter sent by the complainant’s legal representative to the licensee appears on the screen, followed by the following text:




For the record, [AK] has never claimed that he was ‘a war hero’]

A – When - he used to say that when the European Court granted them their titles and lands and all the millions of dollars in - is it reparations? Something along those lines, that we'd all be right, none of us would have to worry again and he'd take care of us all, and - so that – somehow -

Reporter - So he believed or was telling you he was going to be extremely wealthy?

A - I was just like, oh yeah, righto [MK].

Presenter – And the [K] brothers say that they have not benefitted financially from their claimed nobility, [reporter’s name] with that report.


Attachment BComplainant’s submissions regarding clause 4.3.1 Claims concerning the legitimacy of the Ks’ Titles

The complainant submitted the following to the licensee:

Today Tonight were provided with a 5 page letter from our lawyer on Monday 10 June 2013, proving our titles...

The lawyer’s letter included the following:

As a result of his enquiries, and Poland’s new obligations, in December 2006, [AK] received correspondence from [JS], the Chancellor of Historical Records... in Poland dating from the 15th

century to the end of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the late 19th century (which I have sighted), providing him with information about his known family lineage, and concluding that:

As the first-born male to His Serene Highness [name], Prince in the Kingdom of Poland, Count of the Holy Roman Empire, [AK] bore the expected title of His Serene Highness, Prince [name], Prince in the Kingdom of Poland, Count of the Holy Roman Empire; and

As the second-born male to his Serene Highness, Prince [name], [MK] bore the expected title of His Serene Highness, Prince [name], Prince in the Kingdom of Poland.

The legitimacy of these titles was recognised by the International Tribunal of Justice by Arbitration, when it handed down an Arbitral Award on 25 September 2008 (a notarised copy of which I have sighted), which made reference to my clients’ paternal and maternal lineages, and resolved that [AK] was the ‘current possessor of the nobiliary titles of Prince from Poland and of Count of the Roman Sacred Empire’, and that [MK] was the ‘current possessor of the nobiliary title of Prince from Poland’, and acknowledged the right accompanying their titles of fons honorum (i.e. the right to grant personal and honorary privileges through, for example, and Order of Merit).

[...]

The [L] coat of arms does not entitle [AK] or [MK] to have a Princely title. They have not claimed that this is so.

A coat of arms is a heraldic design unique to an individual, a family or a State. My clients’ paternal and maternal families both have distinct coat of arms, which they are entitled to use.

However, it is the Arbitral Award referred to... above that effectively legally entitles [AK] and [MK] to a Princely Title.

[...]

My clients’ titles are custom or courtesy titles only. The titles are not recognised by the Republic of Poland; nor do they have any standing in Poland. My clients have never asserted this.

The complainant then submitted the following to the ACMA:


Briefly, a representative of the Polish Government contacted us and advised my brother and I that our family is descended from Polish royalty. Not completely believing this and wanting to investigate further, we took the matter to the European court seeking clarification either way. The judgment, which we have the original notarised document [sic], states that we indeed do have a royal title and are entitled to use it. Poland is now a Republic so while they acknowledge these titles they do not recognise them. We have always asserted this and have published the same on our website.

[...]

The Royal experts are self-proclaimed, and are not privy to the legal documentation which we hold, which disproves the entire story. Our lawyer checked all our documentation and found it all to be true and correct.

[...]

We have done nothing wrong. Letters from Polish Government representatives and the European Court judgment support our claims. We hold all these documents.

Claims that the Ks had benefitted financially from their titles

The complainant submitted the following to the licensee:

The [family] have never benefitted financially from the titles, nor have they sought recognition from the Polish government or community.

The lawyer’s letter included the following:

My clients... have not benefitted financially from their royal status.

The complainant also submitted the following to the ACMA:

We have not profited by our titles.


Attachment CLicensee’s submissions regarding clause 4.3.1Claims concerning the legitimacy of the Ks’ Titles

The licensee replied as follows to the complainant (relevantly):

...We also relied upon information from expert, Mr Rafe Heydel-Mankoo who is a royal commentator and expert in orders and honours... We believe that the information presented by Mr Heydel-Mankoo can be relied upon due to his standing as a reliable expert in his field.

The licensee also submitted the following to the ACMA:

Seven considers that both the promotions and the full report accurately portray that the [K] brothers claimed to be descendants of Polish royalty but that experts were sceptical of the claims as were some family members. The introduction to the report states: ‘Brothers [MK] and [AK] [family name] claim they are the direct descendants of Polish royalty and have taken on the titles of princes. However many experts are highly sceptical of their claims of nobility. Even a family member has now come forward attacking the legitimacy of her blue blood relatives. So, Princes or pretenders?’

In the report, we featured information provided by [A] regarding her views on the [K] brother’s [sic] noble title claims. It is clear from the segment that the viewpoints presented by [A] were her first-hand accounts or her opinions. Seven believes it was also reasonable to include supporting opinions from Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and [B] given their experience is relevant to the issues in dispute.

Poland has non-royal Princes, the equivalent of English Dukes, umm... but the [Ks’] name will not be found amongst the list. There are about 20-odd Polish Princely families and the [Ks], unless, umm, they are unknown to me, and I’ve been in the field for 20 years, simply do not exist as a title family.

There is no evidence of any title having been granted to a [K] family, be it a Countly title or a Princely title.

We have never had the [Ks] in any Polish events in Adelaide… the Polish Government doesn't recognise royalties anymore.

Seven has presented the above statements, amongst other statements made by interviewees in the segment, merely as viewpoints of the interviewees. When the segment is viewed in its entirety, it is presented as a dispute regarding the legitimate use of noble titles by the [K] brothers.

[Mr Heydel-Mankoo] is a renowned royal commentator and expert in honours and orders with 20 years experience in his field. In his interview segments, it is clear he is providing his opinion on whether the [Ks] are a royal family, based on his extensive knowledge in the field. Additionally, the interview with [B] volunteer for 40 years, was presented as merely her account of having not interacted with the [Ks] in the Adelaide Polish community. Therefore, we believe it was reasonable to canvas these opinions in support of [A’s] sceptical viewpoints.

Notwithstanding that the Code does not require a licensee to include all or even opposing viewpoints in current affair programs, the segment included excerpts from the [K] family lawyer


which asserts ‘the legitimacy of these titles was recognised by the International Tribunal of Justice by Arbitration when it handed down an Arbitral Award on 25 September 2008.’

Therefore, in regards to assertions that ‘the [Ks] are not descendants of Polish royalty’ and that the ‘[Ks’] titles are fictitious’, Seven believes the segment was merely presenting the interviewees’ viewpoints regarding a dispute, rather than making factual statements.

[...]

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo is a well-known Royal Commentator and an expert on honours and orders in the UK with 20 years experience in his field and has been featured in a variety of major international media, providing expert analysis, interviews and commentary. [Mr Heydel-Mankoo] is the former editor of Burke’s World Orders of Nighthood & Merit (a major 2,000 page publication, in two volumes, which is found in embassies, royal households and protocol offices around the world) and has advised various governments on policy matters. He is a trustee of the Canadian Oryal Heritage Trust and a Research Associate at the leading UK public policy think tank ResPublica.

[Mr Heydel-Mankoo] has provided Seven his expert opinion on the [Ks’] royal claims based on a significant amount of research. To summarise his report to Seven... [Mr Heydel-Mankoo’s] opinion was:

No family name [K] has ever received a Polish aristocratic title, either princely or comital.

There are very few Polish Princely Houses (and although some of them are entitled to the qualification of ‘Serene Highness’, none of them are royal – a Polish prince is the equivalent of a non-royal English Duke). All of the Royal Houses of Poland are extinct, therefore [K’s] claim to be a representative of a Royal House is bogus.

After listing all legitimate Princely Houses of Poland, princely families of ancient origin that lost their nation standing over time, and a complete list of Polish counts, [Mr Heydel-Mankoo] concludes:

In light of the above, I am happy to confirm that Mr [K] is not royal (no-one in Poland is royal as all the royal houses are long extinct) and is not a titled aristocrat but, at best, may be an undistinguished member of the numerous ‘szlachta’ (untitled nobility, equivalent to the English gentry) – and even this is uncertain as he must still prove his direct descent from the armigerous [K] family.

The licensee then provided an email that had been sent to them by the royals expert backing up his claims. In addition to the extract cited above, it included (relevantly) the following:

... as you will see from the list of names, supra. Mr [K]’s surname does not appear. The practice of hyphenating one’s surname with the name of one’s coat of arms is a not unusual practice among members of the Polish ‘szlachta’ (‘szlachta’ is best defined as the untitled nobility of Poland – a group we in England would refer to as ‘gentry’). There is a coat of arms named [L] which is connected with *a* family named [K]. Whether Mr [K] is a member of this armigerous szlachta family or not, I do not know. But, certainly, even if he were a member of the armigerous [K] family and chose to style himself ‘[K-L]’, this means very little indeed.

[...]

Let us now turn to Mr [K]’s other claims and activities:


[K] boasts of numerous honours, as indicated by his entensive list of post-nominals: ‘HSH Prince [name] SQT, GCEG, RCST, CStS-JC, J.P., Count of the Holy Roman Empire.’

We have already established that he is not a Serene Highness, he is not a Prince and he is not a Count of the Holy Roman Empire.

The post-nominals he uses relate to his membership of a number of private associations and orders, none of which are recognised by the Australian government.

First of all, it should be noted that the use of post-nominal letters after one’s surname is a practice reserved almost exclusively for royal and state honours conferred in the Commonwealth, particularly in the Commonwealth realms. None of Mr [K]’s so-called ‘orders’ originate from an English-speaking nation – which makes his use (creation!) of English language post-nominals all the more ridiculous.

[...]

His honours, as listed on his website are as follows:

A list of claimed honours and titles then followed.

The first two honours from the ‘Sultan of Buayan’ must be taken with a grain of salt. If the Sultinate exists at all, it is a ‘micro-nation’, unrecognised by the international community.

The Order of the Eagle of Georgia (and the Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ – to give it its full title), is a private royal house order of the formerly ruling family of Georgia. It is not a Georgian state order and is not recognised by any foreign governments (i.e. Australia) and may not be worn at official functions in Australia. It is probably fair to assume that Mr [K] was made a member of this private association because the members believed he was a legitimate prince. We may also make the same assumption about his acceptance into the Royal Confraternity of San Teotonio, again this is a private association under the patronage of the head of the formerly ruling family of Portugal.

The final order listed, the Order of St Stanislas, is a bizarre organisation which has attracted a number of ‘walter mitty’ characters who appear to suffer from delusions of grandeur. It is extremely common to discover that a person posing with a fake aristocratic title is also a member of the Order of St Stanislas. The two often go hand in hand. Again, I had a detailed essay on this subject on my website and I have been interviewed about this organisation in the media on a handful of occasions due to the shady connections the order had/has in Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine. [K] holds high rank in this completely spurious Order and is, or was, the Order’s Prior for Australia.

The claim that his titles and coat of arms were recognised by the European Court of the European Union in 2008 is utter nonsense. Similarly ridiculous is his ‘Royal Companion of Alliance’ document – which he claims to sign with other (sic) Royal Houses, Governments and distinguished organisations. Yet more delusion.

Claims that the Ks had benefitted financially from their titles

The licensee submitted the following to the ACMA:

Neither the program nor the program promotions stated the [Ks] have financially benefitted through the use of their princely titles. The program does include reference to the possibility


that the [Ks] have used their titles to gain entry to some elite functions and have possibly received perks that were non-monetary in nature:

The licensee then included two quotes from the segment to this effect.

The claim that the [Ks] may have used their titles to gain access to elite functions is supported by numerous photographs on their website as displayed during the program. The claim that the [Ks] have benefitted from their claimed titles is also consistent with the letter from the [Ks’] own lawyer which states: ‘they have met with people whose paths they would not have crossed, and have been presented with opportunities they would not have crossed, and have been presented with opportunities they would not have been able to undertake, but for their royal lineage.’

Furthermore, at the conclusion of the segment, the presenter states ‘the [K] brothers say they have not benefitted financially from their claimed nobility.’ Therefore, we believe that neither the segment, nor the promotions have suggested that the [Ks] have benefitted financially from their royal titles.

Licensee’s submissions regarding clause 4.5The licensee submitted to the ACMA in relation to clause 4.5:

In the promotions, we featured excerpts from interviews with [B], Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, Bill Hobson and [A]. It is clear from the promotion that these are the interviewees’ viewpoints that are featured regarding a dispute over the legitimacy of the [Ks’] royal titles and [AK’s] ‘war hero claims’.

To the extent any of the representations are found to be statements of fact, Seven considers the statements were accurate taking into account the information available to Seven at the time the segment and promotion were broadcast.

Licensee’s submissions regarding clause 4.3.5The Licensee responded to the complainant in relation to clause 4.3.5 that:

[The Privacy Guidelines] provide that ‘information that is readily available to the public would generally not be considered to be material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs’.

Any images of you or your family were sourced directly from your website, which at the time of preparing the program, was freely accessible online. There were also images obtained from the Australian & New Zealand Military Imposters (“ANZMI”) website which are publicly available. Therefore, we do not believe that the material contained in the Today Tonight report or its promotions breached your privacy.

We take our duty as a news and current affairs provider very seriously, and believe that the allegations against [AK] for wearing Australian Defence Force medals and the Order of Australia to be important matters of public interest which were suitable for broadcast.


Attachment DConsiderations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character The primary consideration is whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of

the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material is presented as a statement of fact or as an expression of opinion. In that regard, the relevant statement must be evaluated in its context , i.e. contextual

indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer.

The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’, ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion. However, a common sense judgment is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.

Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts are usually still characterised as factual material (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be presented as an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind.

The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual material or opinion, i.e. it is not possible to conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a statement of opinion rather than factual material.

Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.


Documents

Investigation Report No. 3093 - acma.gov.au/media/Broadcasting... · Web viewThe ACMA considers that the introduction and premise of the segment set the ... Princesses; [P] and