Russell vs Media24 publications

Complaint 32291                                                                                            

Ruling by the Press Ombud

Dates of articles:                23 August 2022 – 21 August 2023

Headline of publication:   Various

Author:                                  Various

1. Mr Darren de Rodez Benavent Russell (“Russell”) complains about various articles published from August 2022 through to August 2023 by News24, Rapport, Die Burger and Netwerk24.
2. The complaint is exceptional for, amongst others, the breadth of the complaint, the passage of time since the publication of the articles, and the volume of papers.
3. Despite valiant efforts by the Public Advocate to assist the complainant in formulating the complaint, I was presented with 2143 pages to consider – many of those pages containing hyperlinks and online folders with further documents and/or information.

Background

4. Mr Russell, a British national, has made headlines in 2022 and 2023, for accusations that he was renting out luxurious properties along the Atlantic Seaboard of Cape Town which he did not own.
5. The crux of the matter is this: From Russell’s perspective, he employed a business model described by himself as “the goose that lays the golden egg”. He would rent luxury villas from landlords, make upgrades, and rent out these villas to tourists using well-known short-term accommodation websites. To his mind, it was a win-win situation. He would comfortably pay the rent from his rentals received, the owners received their rent for their properties and, in some cases, considerable upgrades effected to the properties. According to Russell, the landowners knew of and approved of the sub-letting enterprise and tried to do him in by demanding vacant occupation once he spent the money on the upgrades.
6. From the landlords’ perspectives, Russell was committing fraud. In fact, Russell was arrested on the insistence of some landlords for crimes he allegedly committed. Some complained that Russell was effectively squatting and they struggled to get him out of their premises despite taking legal steps against him. Some claimed that Russell was not paying rent.
7. It must be emphasised that every sentence set out above is disputed to a lesser or greater extent by the parties involved. The entire saga would be worthy of a Hollywood script. It contains allegations of conspiracies, tape recordings containing “confessions”, wrongful arrests, illegal evictions, plots to “steal” properties, several court battles, desperate tourists being stranded outside of their dream vacation home, and an individual who allegedly “hi-jacked” a booking platform to steal rental income, leaving Russell to deal with the fallout.
8. In his revised complaint, Russell complains about the following articles:

• “Brit vas oor ‘kul jou huur, kul jou daar’” – Rapport, 21 August 2022
• “Brit wat mense glo met verblyf bedrieg, kry borgtog” – Netwerk24, 23 August 2022
• “Brit weer vasgetrek ná borgtog van R30 000 vir dieselfde verhuurslenter” – Netwerk245, 17 December 2022
• “Second arrest for Cape Town luxury accommodation ‘scammer’ suspected of pocketing millions’ – News24, 14 January 2023.
• “Saak uitgestel teen Brit wat huise huur en weer verhuur” – Netwerk24, 02 February 2023.

9. Some of these articles appeared in print in Die Burger and Rapport, and some of them appeared in translated form on News24.
10. Russell further cites several other articles he is aggrieved by. All the articles either reported about the court proceedings or quoted role-players in the controversy, such as the landlords, a private investigator hired by some of them, etc.
11. Russell disputes most of the contents of all the articles. He says ““almost every statement made by those interviewed is demonstrably false”.
12. Some of the articles reflect that his erstwhile attorney was approached for comment but declined to do so.

Unreasonable delay

13. Clause 1.3. of the Complaints Procedure stipulates that a complaint shall be made as soon as possible, but not later than 20 working days after the date of publication giving rise to the complaint.
14. In this matter, Russell first approached the Ombud’s office on 22 August 2024. (Since August 2024, the Public Advocate has attempted to assist the complainant to present the complaint in a digestible format and various delays ensued for which the complainant cannot be blamed.)
15. Russell’s first approach to the Press Council was two years after the first articles were published and approximately a year after the last article under complaint.
16. He explains the inordinate delay by advancing the following:

• He was physically incarcerated for periods;
• He was not aware of the Press Council’s procedures until a journalist mentioned it to him “earlier in (2024)”.
• He focused on defending himself in court.

17. Members of the Press Council all provide contact details of the Press Council on their websites and in their publications. The procedures are set out clearly on the Press Council’s website.
18. Of the above, only the physical incarceration appears to deserve closer scrutiny.
19. According to Russell, he was first arrested in August 2022 and released on bail later that month. His second arrest came in December 2022 and he spent three months in Pollsmoor prison. He was again released on bail in March 2023 and, according to him, all the charges have since been withdrawn.
20. He has been out of prison since March 2023. Based on this explanation, I find no good reason for the months of delay in starting the complaints process.
21. In Jurie Roux vs News24 (2^nd Appeal Decision) (2022), Judge Ngoepe stressed the importance of adequate explanations for the late filing of complaints in order not to subvert the objectives of the Press Council’s complaints mechanism.
22. The more extraordinary the delay, the better the explanation need to be. In searching for such extraordinary factors, I also considered the contents of the complaint in detail.
23. As mentioned above, the articles all contained reportage of legal proceedings or interviews with role-players. A publication is entitled to report fairly on legal proceedings.
24. With regards to Russell’s challenge to the contents of quotes attributed to the various role-players, it must be emphasised that the very nature of journalism is to rely on sources who provide their versions of events. There is, of course, a duty on journalists not to be reduced to parrots or copying machines for those who want to have their voices heard. (Siyaya TV vs amaBhungane, 2023).
25. But journalists do not have the resources, tools, powers, and capacity to verify the accuracy of all claims. There is no obligation on journalists to verify all claims. It is only when such claim is doubtful and only insofar as it is practicable to do so that the Press Code imposes an additional duty on journalists. (Safa and Jordaan vs City Press, 2025).
26. The majority of Russell’s complaints sought to impose such an additional duty on the journalists involved. It is clear that Russell has a very different version of events as the individuals quoted in the article, but that does not in itself equate to a prima facie breach of the Press Code, let alone a prima breach of such gravity that would constitute extraordinary circumstances to entertain a complaint filed two years after publication.
27. What appears to be at the heart of the complaint, is a desire of Russell to have his side of the story heard. The one aspect of Russell’s complaint that deserves special mentioning, is his claim that all the charges against him have since been withdrawn.
28. He complains about his continued exposure as the articles remain accessible on the internet. The anxiousness of many subjects of unfavourable media coverage to either be forgotten is neither surprising nor novel. Many, if not most individuals who feel embarrassed or wronged by historic reporting would prefer such negative coverage to be removed.
29. Clause 1.12. of the Press Code provides that the media shall not be obliged to remove any article which is not unlawfully defamatory. The qualification of unlawfulness is because a lot of material published by the news media is bound to be defamatory within the legal meaning of defamation but nevertheless justified for one or another legally recognised reason and therefore lawful.
30. The Press Code therefore does not impose a duty on member publications to remove articles for any other reason than unlawfulness.
31. With that said, there is an obligation on member publications to “state where a report is based on limited information and supplement it once new information becomes available” (clause 1.9).
32. In Mashaba vs Sunday World (2025), I held that clause 1.9. imposes an obligation on subscriber members to at least consider whether there is any new information or perspective that might warrant either a follow-up article or update to an existing article.
33. While the media is free to report on legal proceedings with considerable leeway, such freedom comes with the obligation to update such reportage if the tide turns. It would be unfair to report on someone’s arrest and trial, but not the fact that they have been acquitted, for example.
34. This is a general proposition and I make no finding that there have indeed been developments of such nature that requires the relevant publications to follow up.
35. In this matter, Russell only attempted to engage with one of the relevant publications (News24) on one occasion, being 14 September 2023. His approach was also unusual. He said to the publication he is writing to them for two purposes.
36. The first was described as follows: “We are currently collating the articles and any other content consumed by the public that is related to or stems from this campaign, including interviews with the above people. These include the articles published by News24, Netwerk24, etc. with a view to launching proceedings against all parties for libel, criminal libel, unjustified enrichment, malicious prosecution (multiple of), illegal arrest, false imprisonment, theft, embezzlement, fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, extortion, etc. and very possibly conspiracy to torture, murder and dispose of a body.”
37. The second reason was formulated to be an “enquiry” whether the publication’s intentions were genuine, whether it had “journalistic integrity”, was part of a plot against him, etc. Russell also intimated that he wanted to provide information on a confidential basis.
38. It is unsurprising that News24 did not accept the invitation to engage with Russell in light of the stated purpose for such engagement. Somewhere in-between those e-mails, the issue of pending criminal charges was canvassed. However, from the more than 2000 pages provided to me, it remains unclear if charges were withdrawn against him, and if so, when, and whether such withdrawals were provisional or not.
39. Considering all of the above, I do not find such extraordinary circumstances in the complaint to warrant a revisit to articles published up to two years prior to the first complaint. I therefore decline to accept his complaint.
40. Mr Russell is, of course, free to approach the relevant publications who wrote about him (with satisfactory supporting material) on the basis that there has been a material change of events such as an acquittal or withdrawal of charges and request them to follow up. Should he do so and then feel that the relevant publications did not act in accordance with the Press Code, such a complaint would be an entirely new matter.

Conclusion

41. The complaint is not accepted.

Herman Scholtz

Press Ombud

14 October 2025

Appeal

The Complaints Procedure lays down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.