INLSA

Cape Argus High Court Writer Fatima Schroeder, right, confronts convicted sex offender William Creasey.

Fatima Schroeder

WHAT is public interest? This is a question journalists are confronted with daily.

Friday’s front page report on convicted child sex offender William John Creasey is an example of the challenge of affirming the values and determining the limits of public interest.

The report was the culmination of a month-long investigation into the activities of Creasey, who was convicted in 2004 and released on parole in 2009.

Creasey was an art teacher at the time of his arrest in 2002.

The Cape Argus received a tip-off from one of Creasey’s former victims that he had placed an advertisement on the internet offering art classes for children, under the name Paul Hamilton.

As journalists are trained to do, we treated the tip-off with scepticism, particularly since it came from a former victim. What complicated the matter was that the original advertisement had been removed from Gumtree and replaced by a new one that made no reference to children.

After some investigation, the Cape Argus confirmed that Creasey and Hamilton were the same person and that he had initially advertised art classes for children.

Posing as the mother of two boys, a reporter responded to the advertisement and “Hamilton” agreed to teach her children privately. He claimed to be a retired teacher, whereas he was not retired when he was arrested in 2002.

No date was arranged for the class. “Hamilton” said he would contact the two other mothers who had made a similar request, and arrange for their children to join the class.

What he didn’t know was that one of the mothers had been contacted by the Cape Argus and had confirmed that he was willing to teach her son.

She knew who he really was and had no intention of sending her son to Creasey for lessons.

The question was: should we publish the information we had obtained thus far? A complicating factor was that he had since replaced the advert.

The story took a different turn when, after weeks of investigation, the Cape Argus managed to track down the second mother.

She said it was Creasey who had offered to teach her son after she had casually mentioned that he had an interest in art.

This mother knew him only as Paul Hamilton and did not know of his earlier conviction.

The Cape Argus found that the cellphone number given in the Gumtree advert was also given in an internet job-seeking advert offering house-sitting services.

Creasey’s cellphone voicemail said: “Hi. You’ve reached John the house-sitter and Paul Hamilton the art teacher.”

Flyers had been printed offering a house-sitting service. This was relevant because, during the investigation into Creasey’s activities in 2002, police received reports that he had molested boys at homes he was house-sitting.

The Cape Argus was convinced at this juncture that it had enough information to publish a report that would be wholly justified on public interest grounds. Still, we grappled with the questions. Could we justifiably publish a story about a man whose conduct did not amount to a criminal offence, and who had a right to privacy and a right to teach?

On the other hand, could we remain silent on circumstances in which children might be at risk?

Sex offender experts, including one who was opposed to the story being published, agreed that child sex offenders could not be rehabilitated and that continuing treatment and monitoring were key to preventing recidivism. They say that child sex offenders have an illness and can’t help themselves, but that, with treatment, they are able to identify situations they should avoid as a means of preventing themselves from breaking the law.

Creasey tearfully pleaded for help from the magistrate who sentenced him in 2004.

Legal commentators advised the Cape Argus to balance the rights of the community with Creasey’s rights and at least two felt strongly that the rights of children trumped any rights Creasey had. But not everyone agreed, and the Cape Argus was acutely aware of the debate surrounding the issue throughout the investigation.

A decisive element in the decision to publish the report was our conviction that it drew attention to the need for formal monitoring mechanisms being incorporated into the sentencing of sex offenders, for the sake of society and, not least, for convicted offenders like Creasey.

We were equally convinced of our duty to contribute to limiting the exposure of children to risk.

While there is no precise formula to guide a newspaper in weighing the ethical considerations generated by stories of this kind, the Cape Argus was persuaded that, on balance, publishing the report was a genuine instance of serving the public interest. The report makes a strong case, we believe, for the better protection of the interests of all involved – which would not have been true had we not published it.

l Fatima Schroeder is the Cape Argus High Court reporter.