To celebrate the auspicious occasion of Crikey‘s 10th birthday, every day for the rest of the year we’ll be dipping into the vault to publish an item from the very same date from one of the past 10 years.

If this trip back in time works, it should provide a snapshot of a moment, or the chance to ponder an event with the benefit of hindsight… or the opportunity to marvel at how far Crikey has come:

Wednesday February 15, 2006

Eyewitness account: Latham and the photographer

By Margaret Simons

“I thought it was a bit weird. I thought he might be a p-edophile. He was going up close to where the children were playing and seemed to be taking photos of them. I was thinking of calling the police.”

So says Pia Cunningham, a property officer at the Combined Real Estate office in Campbelltown, Sydney. She is talking about the 19th January this year, when she noticed a man with a camera ducking behind cars and hiding in bushes near the Hungry Jack’s playground opposite her office.

We now know that the man was not a p-edophile at all but Ross Schultz, a photographer from The Daily Telegraph. He was targeting Mark Latham, who was at the Hungry Jack’s restaurant with his sons. Latham is facing charges of assault, malicious damage and theft over what happened on that day, and is due to appear in court on 22 March.

Cunningham says that she first noticed the photographer “ducking behind” cars outside her office at about noon. She went out to lunch, and noticed that he was still there, hiding in bushes near the playground, when she returned.

At about 1.20pm she saw Mark Latham storm out of the restaurant with his hands in the air and grab the camera from Schultz. She saw Latham and Schultz exchange words, and saw Latham throw a couple of punches which failed to connect before he put the camera in his car and sped off.

Cunningham then saw Schultz talking to another witness. She says she heard Schultz say words to the effect of “I asked him if I could get a photo of him coming at me to show everyone what a bastard he is.”

Cunningham says she is willing to give evidence in court, but has not yet been contacted by either side. She does not know Latham, other than through the media.

She has firm opinions on what she saw. “I say good on Mark Latham. I would have done exactly the same thing if someone had been taking pictures of my kids.”

We put Cunningham’s version of events to Latham, who confirmed them. He said:

“If I was out on my own and he was taking photos I wouldn’t have given two hoots. This was an issue concerning the privacy and protection of my children (who are not ‘fair game’) — something on which no parent should ever compromise. I had no proof of who this guy was and when I asked him he couldn’t tell me why he was there. Who knows what he does with all his photos, if he sells them on to other people. Several of the photos identify the school my oldest son attends (he was wearing part of its uniform). Isn’t that against the child protection rules?”

The media themselves are always writing up the threat to children in today’s society. And what, when I was confronted by it, I was supposed to do nothing? Not on my watch, I’m afraid.

Crikey contacted Daily Telegraph editor David Penberthy’s office, but was told that neither he nor Schultz would comment on Cunningham’s claims, since the matter is before the courts.

So why was Schultz pursuing Latham? The Tele claims Latham is fair game. But there are limits, and News Limited’s own Code of Conduct gives some indication of where they should be. Among other things, it states:

“Do not harass or try to intimidate people when seeking information or photographs” and under the heading “Privacy” states that “Journalists have no general right to report the private behaviour of public figures unless wider issues are involved.

“Public interest is defined … as involving a matter capable of affecting the people at large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about, what is going on; or what may happen to them or to others.”