BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Motorway Patrol breached the privacy standard. A short segment of the programme focused on a Senior Constable attending a crash on an Auckland motorway. It featured footage of the complainant as a ‘Good Samaritan’ who had stopped to check on the person in the crashed vehicle. The Authority acknowledged the impact of the broadcast on the complainant, who said they were not informed the filming was for broadcast purposes and were not asked for consent. However, applying the relevant guidelines under the privacy standard, the Authority found the broadcast did not disclose information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy and would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person. The complainant was presented positively, displayed no obvious vulnerability and was not shown doing or saying anything an objective reasonable person would find humiliating or that would impact on their reputation.

Not Upheld: Privacy

The broadcast

[1]  A three-minute segment during Motorway Patrol, broadcast on 5 August 2025, followed a Senior Constable as he attended a crash on an Auckland motorway involving a car and a truck in poor weather. The Senior Constable was shown travelling to the crash, checking on the drivers of the vehicles, and helping move the truck off the motorway (as it was blocking a lane).

[2]  The narrator said, ‘The ambulance isn’t on site yet, but a medical professional is. So is a Good Samaritan.’ The complainant in this case was the ‘Good Samaritan’. Before this introduction, there were brief shots where the complainant could be seen in the background on the phone.

[3]  The following interaction occurred between the complainant and the Senior Constable, during which the complainant’s face, body, clothing and voice were discernible:

Complainant:            I didn’t actually see the accident happen. I just drove by and–

Senior Constable:    No, no. Thanks for stopping. [Pointing to the medical professional] Do you know this guy?

Complainant:            Yeah, that’s my husband [laughs].

Senior Constable:    She’s [the person in the crashed car] probably in shock, isn’t she.

Complainant:            She is.

Senior Constable:    And it’ll be the seatbelt [referring to chest pain mentioned earlier by the driver of the car].

Complainant:            Yeah.

Senior Constable:    Busy, busy time for ambulances. They’re short, so.

Complainant:            And the shitty rain.

Senior Constable:    And it’s raining.

[4]  The Senior Constable was then shown talking to the complainant and their husband, and saying, ‘We’ll just transport her [the patient] to Waitākere Hospital, and she can get checked out there’.

The complaint

[5]  The complainant made a direct privacy complaint to the Authority on the grounds that:

• they were ‘clearly identifiable in the broadcast’, as footage of their face and voice was not censored, and they were shown pointing at someone while saying, ‘That’s my husband’
• they were ‘not informed that filming was taking place for broadcast purposes’
• their consent to be filmed and broadcast was not sought and if it had been, the answer would have been ‘no’
• they had ‘a reasonable expectation that any interaction would not be televised’
• the broadcast and the whole experience have caused them considerable distress and been immensely stressful.

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not consider the broadcast breached the privacy standard for the following reasons.

Disclosure of private information or material

[7]  The broadcast did not disclose private information about the complainant. ‘The only information conveyed about [the complainant] was their marital status, which is not an offensive disclosure, and this information was freely given.’

Reasonable expectation of privacy

[8]  ‘The filming took place on the side of a motorway… and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a setting, where any person may see the people involved in the incident.’

[9]  TVNZ considered ‘the content disclosed was not intimate, sensitive or traumatic in nature and there is no reasonable expectation that footage captured in a public place would not be disclosed.’ There was no intrusion upon the complainant’s solitude or seclusion¹ and the footage was not obtained by subterfuge or prying.

[10]  It was also not ‘objectively obvious from the circumstances that the [complainant was] particularly vulnerable’² or in a vulnerable state: they were ‘not involved in the accident’ and in the broadcast appeared ‘upbeat and considerate in [their] interactions with police’.

Highly offensive disclosure

[11]  The information about the complainant in the broadcast would not be deemed highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in their shoes.³ ‘None of the material in the programme concerning [the complainant] could be described as humiliating or distressing.’ ‘[The complainant] was portrayed, explicitly, as a Good Samaritan. This characterisation by the narrator is consistent with how viewers would appraise [the complainant’s] involvement in the incident.’

Consent / Informing the complainant of filming

[12]  Although the production company advised TVNZ that the complainant’s ‘consent was not directly requested’, ‘[the complainant] was told, along with two other people, that the incident was being filmed for Motorway Patrol. This would also have been apparent from the high-vis vests the camera crew were wearing, displaying “Greenstone” and the company’s logo. There can be no reasonable outtake that the camera was hidden, the camera operator and camera were in view of the people at the incident.’⁴

[13]  The production company later provided a transcript of the interactions between the complainant and the camera operator and screenshots from the raw footage showing the relative proximity of the complainant and the camera operator (between one and three metres), and the complainant at times looking directly at the camera. It said the complainant was around the camera operator for approximately seven minutes and it was not a ‘crowded scene’. Initially five people were present (including the complainant), and later seven people when the medical professional and another officer arrived.

[14]  The transcript shows two instances of the camera operator advising they were filming:

Disclosure of programme/filming

[The complainant] is informed (as part of a group of three) that the camera operator is filming for Motorway Patrol. [Screenshot provided showing the camera operator with the complainant, the truck driver and the victim sitting in the crashed car.] … The camera operator is one to two metres away from [the complainant].

Cam Op:         Hiya, we’re just doing Motorway Patrol today.

Truck driver:    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Cam Op:         That’s what the cameras are for. So we film everything they’re doing.

Second disclosure of filming

A short time later, the camera operator leans in to the victim (still seated in the car) to repeat the conversation, to be sure she’d heard. Although this is directed to the victim, [the complainant] is standing beside him when he repeats his statement the second time. They are approximately a metre apart [screenshot provided].

Cam Op:         I don’t want to stress you out but we’re just doing Motorway Patrol. So just to let you know I’m filming the police doing their job today.

Victim:             Okay.

Public interest

[15]  ‘TVNZ considers that there was a public interest to include the footage in the way it was presented’. The broadcast ‘serves the public good to exhibit Good Samaritans voluntarily assisting fellow citizens in vulnerable circumstances and cooperating with Police. More broadly, it is beneficial for members of the public to be made aware of the various dangers presented on New Zealand roads, and, in cases where such hazards are not avoided, of the valuable services provided by emergency response personnel such as Police’.

The standard

[16]  The privacy standard states:⁵

Broadcasters should maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual.

[17]  It aims to respect, where reasonable, people’s wishes not to have themselves or their affairs broadcast to the public.⁶ It seeks to protect their dignity, autonomy, mental wellbeing and reputation, away from the glare of publicity. However, it also allows broadcasters to gather, record and broadcast material where this is in the public interest.⁷ 

Our analysis

[18]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[19]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁸

[20]  We acknowledge the experience of being filmed and broadcast on television has been distressing for the complainant. However, applying the privacy standard and relevant guidelines, we have not found any breach of the standard.

Privacy

[21]  There are typically three criteria for finding a breach of privacy:

• The individual whose privacy has allegedly been interfered with was identifiable.⁹
• The broadcast disclosed private information or material about the individual, over which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.¹⁰
• The disclosure would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.¹¹

Identification

[22]  The test for whether a person is identifiable is whether they would be identifiable beyond family and close friends who could reasonably be expected to know about the matters dealt with in the broadcast.¹²

[23]  The complainant was clearly identifiable through their image (face, body and clothing) and voice featuring in the broadcast, along with the location of the crash and footage of the complainant’s husband. It is likely people would have identified the complainant who did not already know about their involvement in the incident filmed. Therefore, the first criterion is met.

Information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy

[24]  The next question is whether the broadcast disclosed private information or material about the complainant, over which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[25]  The broadcast disclosed the complainant was ‘a Good Samaritan’ who had stopped to assist when they saw the crashed vehicle, along with ‘a medical professional’ whom the complainant identified as ‘my husband’. It featured footage of the complainant and excerpts of their conversation with the Senior Constable, during which the complainant appeared calm, composed and jovial, smiling and laughing often. The conversation focused on the person in the crashed vehicle (whom the complainant’s husband was assisting, as a medical professional), that they were waiting for the ambulance to arrive, and remarks about the poor weather.

[26]  Relevant factors in assessing whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy attaching to any of this information, include:¹³

• whether the content is in the public domain
• whether the content is intimate, sensitive or traumatic in nature
• whether the individual could reasonably expect the content would not be disclosed
• the nature of the individual.

[27]  Looking first at whether the content was in the public domain, guideline 7.6 states that a person will not usually have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place — that is, one generally accessible to, and/or in view of, the public. It is evident from the broadcast footage that filming took place on the side of a busy motorway in Auckland. Many passing vehicles, drivers and passengers may have seen the complainant at the crash site and speaking with the Senior Constable. Additionally, the broadcaster advises there were between five and seven people present during the filming, including the complainant.

[28]  The same guideline recognises that a reasonable expectation of privacy may exist in a public place, where it is objectively obvious from the circumstances that the individual is particularly vulnerable. Situations where vulnerability may be higher include people caught up in emergencies, accident victims, or those suffering a bereavement.¹⁴

[29]  We acknowledge the complainant appears, from their submissions, to have some vulnerabilities due to past experiences. However, this would not have been objectively obvious to the production crew or the camera operator while filming the complainant. The complainant, who had dutifully stopped to assist and check on the driver of the crashed vehicle, engaged willingly and jovially — often laughing — with the Senior Constable. Although they were offering assistance in an accident, they were not themselves ‘caught up in an emergency’, the victim of an accident, or otherwise obviously ‘particularly vulnerable’ at the time of filming.

[30]  Further, the contents of the conversation (including identifying the medical professional as ‘my husband’) and the complainant’s general demeanour were not of an ‘intimate, sensitive or traumatic’ nature such that they might have the quality of ‘private information’ about the complainant. The complainant spoke to a police officer and there were, according to the production company, between four and six other people present, including the camera operator in relatively close proximity. We do not consider there was a reasonable expectation that the conversation would remain private, or that the complainant had a reasonable interest in solitude or seclusion.¹⁵

[31]  Regarding the complainant’s submission that they were not informed the filming was for broadcast purposes, we acknowledge that a high-vis vest displaying the Greenstone logo and mention of ‘doing Motorway Patrol’ may not necessarily convey to every individual, ‘you are being filmed for a reality TV programme that may be broadcast on national television’. However, the presence of the camera operator carrying a visible camera and Greenstone hi-vis, combined with two mentions of ‘doing Motorway Patrol today’, and ‘filming everything they [the police] are doing’, was in our view adequate information about the filming in the circumstances of the complainant’s involvement. They were not themselves an accident victim or obviously vulnerable, were in a public place, engaging willingly with police, and only filmed being friendly and helpful. We also do not have evidence of the complainant objecting to filming at the time or attempting to get in touch later to register any concern or objection.¹⁶

[32]  For these reasons, we do not consider the broadcast disclosed private information or material attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy — meaning the second criterion has not been met, and therefore no breach of the privacy standard has occurred.

Remaining issues

[33]  For completeness, we make the following observations in relation to the remaining issues raised under the privacy standard.

[34]  Highly offensive disclosure: In light of the nature and tone of the footage of the complainant, we do not consider an objective reasonable person would find the broadcast highly offensive (the third criterion) or that it disclosed anything that was particularly embarrassing or may impact reputation. The complainant was portrayed positively as ‘a Good Samaritan’ and we agree with TVNZ that the audience would have viewed them as such.

[35]  Informed consent: While informed consent is a defence to a breach of privacy under the standard, the standard does not require that informed consent be obtained from every programme participant. Guideline 7.10 states, ‘It is not a breach of privacy where the person concerned has given informed consent to the disclosure or intrusion’. We have not found any such disclosure or intrusion here.

[36]  Informed participation: Although not raised in this case, we note the broadcaster is also not required under the fairness standard to fully inform every programme participant of ‘the nature of the programme and their proposed contribution’, including ‘where their participation is minor in the context of the programme’.¹⁷ We believe the complainant’s participation would reasonably be viewed as minor in the context of Motorway Patrol.

[37]  Public interest: Finally, we acknowledge the broadcaster’s submissions about the public interest in the programme generally — following the work of police on New Zealand’s motorways — as well as public interest in showing ‘Good Samaritans’ stopping to check on accident victims and calling an ambulance if they are first on the scene.

Name suppression

[38]  Although we have not found any breach of privacy, having regard to the nature of the complaint and the complainant’s submissions about the impact on them, we consider it appropriate to suppress the complainant’s details in this decision.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
21 October 2025    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  AD’s direct privacy complaint to the Authority – 5 August 2025

2  AD’s follow-up comments on complaint – 14 and 15 August 2025

3  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 2 September 2025

4  AD's further comments – 17 September 2025

5  TVNZ's further comments – 19 September 2025

¹ Guideline 7.7
² Guideline 7.6
³ Guideline 7.3
⁴ Guideline 7.10
⁵ Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 19
⁷ Commentary, Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 19
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ Guideline 7.1
¹⁰ Guideline 7.3 and 7.4
¹¹ Guideline 7.8
¹² Guideline 7.1
¹³ Guideline 7.4
¹⁴ Guideline 7.6
¹⁵ Guideline 7.7
¹⁶ For a contrasting finding, see, for example, PN and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2016-041 at [31]-[32] and [35], where the Authority expressed concerns about PN being included in the broadcast despite the fact that ‘PN clearly does not want his image or identity to be broadcast on television and appears to have done everything available to him to inform the relevant parties of his concerns…’
¹⁷ Guideline 8.2