Why wasn't it in the story?

Among all the Wide Bay Water PR puff pieces, in Saturday's Chronicle (March 29) I was fascinated to read a little gem of a letter which elicited a curt response from the paper's editor.

The letter was written by Gavin Cantlon, an experienced journalist, complaining about the front page story (FCC March 26) headlined "$10,000 gun haul: no conviction". In Summary Mr Cantlon's complaint was that the court story failed to give the day of the hearing, contained only the name of the defendant, it did not name the defendant's solicitor, the prosecutor, the judge, or report the judges sentencing comments. 

Mr Cantlon said "there must have been good and valid reasons why no conviction was made but these were not reported. The story just sits there implying again that the court system is soft. I find this bad journalism." 

The editor's comment was amusing. Most of the information the story should have contained was packed into the editor's response. If the information was known why was it left out of the story in the first place? One is left wondering where she did her journalism training, especially when she asserts "the names of prosecutors and lawyers are not always integral parts of court reporting".  Really?