The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by Daily Mail Australia online on 31 October 2025, headed “Fiery moment Gus Lamont's trans grandmother waves a pump-action shotgun and ERUPTS in explosive tirade at Daily Mail reporter - as police prepare to drain the dam at property where boy vanished”. 

The article reported that the grandmother of missing four-year-old Gus Lamont waved a pump-action shotgun at a Daily Mail Australia reporter who attended the family’s property seeking comment about a police search. 

The article described the interaction between the reporter and members of the family and reported on developments in the police search for the child. The reference to the grandmother as “trans” appeared in the headline. 

In response to complaints, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). 

The complaints expressed concern that the reference in the headline to the grandmother’s transgender status was irrelevant to the incident described and was not justified by the public interest. 

In response, the publication said the inclusion of the word “trans” in the headline was inadvertent. It said the headline had been amended to remove the reference and that the editor responsible had acknowledged the error. The publication said it had reiterated internally the importance of fairness and balance in headlines and indicated it was prepared to undertake further training regarding reporting on persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics. 

Conclusion: The Council acknowledges the publication’s submission that the inclusion of the word “trans” in the headline was inadvertent and notes its prompt amendment of the headline. The Council also welcomes the publication’s acknowledgement of the error and its indication that it will undertake further training regarding reporting on persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics. 

However, the Council has repeatedly stated that publications should exercise great care not to place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age. 

The Council notes that the grandmother’s transgender status was not reported to be a contributing factor in the interaction involving the firearm or in the search for the missing child. In the absence of a clear link between the reported events and the woman’s transgender status, the Council considers that the prominent reference to “trans” in the headline was not relevant to the substance of the story and was unfair. 

Accordingly, the Council finds that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance, in breach of General Principle 3. 

The Council recognises that reporting on developments in the search for a missing child, and on an interaction involving a firearm, are matters of legitimate public interest. 

However, the Council considers that the prominence given to the woman’s transgender status in the headline could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic was a contributing factor in, the disappearance of the child or the interaction with the journalist, and could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. 

In the absence of a clear link between the woman’s transgender status and the reported events, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing materially to substantial prejudice and that there was insufficient public interest justification for including the reference. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 6.