BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The murder of his father and the suicide of Graham Beattie was examined in an item

titled "Who Cares?" broadcast on 20/20 between 7.30–8.30pm on 2 October 1995. It

was reported that Mr Beattie was a client of the mental health services of Healthlink

South. A promo for the item broadcast on 25 September claimed that "desperate

pleas for help went unheard and hours later a son killed his father".

On behalf of Healthlink South, the Chief Executive (Paul Wylie) complained that the

comment in the promo was incorrect as was much of the material in the full

programme. The programme, he continued, was also unbalanced, unfair to staff of the

Crown Health Enterprise, (CHE) and likely to cause alarm.

While acknowledging that the reference to "hours" in the promo was incorrect – it

should have been days – TV3 maintained that all the other material was accurate. It

was not unfair, it added, and it did not contain the implications ascribed to it by the

complainants. Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Wylie on behalf of Healthlink

South referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a)

of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

On 25 June 1995, the Police discovered the body of Mr Graham Beattie, aged 26

years, in a city alleyway. They later located the body of his father, Mr Don Beattie,

in his home. The conclusion reached by the Police, later confirmed by the Coroner,

was that Don Beattie had been killed by his son Graham, who shortly afterwards

committed suicide. The Police inquiries disclosed that Graham Beattie was well-

known to Healthlink South and, in particular, to the Hereford Centre which it

operated. The deaths were investigated by the Coroner in April 1996 and his findings

are contained in a report dated 8 May 1996.

On 2 October 1995, some three months after the deaths and six months before the

Coroner's hearing, 20/20 broadcast an item entitled "Who Cares?". It referred to some

of Graham Beattie's activities, especially in the months before his death, and

questioned whether Healthlink South had responded adequately to the behaviour

exhibited, and to Don Beattie's pleas for assistance.

The item interviewed Jane Beattie at length – daughter and sister respectively of Don

and Graham. She mentioned that she also had been a patient at Healthlink South and,

emphasising her close relationship with her father, expressed the opinion that the

treatment for her brother Graham from Healthlink South had been inadequate. No

representative from Healthlink South was interviewed during the item and the

programme referred to the constraints imposed on Healthlink South by the

requirements in the Coroners Act and Privacy Act.

The Complaint

Paul Wylie, Chief Executive of Healthlink South (a Crown Health Enterprise or CHE)

complained to TV3 both about the programme and a promo for it. He alleged that the

promo, broadcast on 25 September, contained two inaccurate and unfair comments.

Those comments were the claims, first, that "desperate pleas for help went unheard

and hours later a son killed his father", and secondly, that the father had been pleading

for help up to three times a week for three months.

In the complaint about the substantive item broadcast on 2 October, Mr Wylie

highlighted that it had been explained to 20/20, while the item was being prepared, that

Healthlink South was restricted in the comments it could make in view of privacy

obligations, the requirements in the Coroners Act, and the possibility of adverse

impacts on other members of the family from the publicity. In the complaint to TV3,

Mr Wylie repeated the advice that he had given 20/20 while the programme was being

prepared:

I reiterate that Healthlink South has nothing to hide in relation to the care and

treatment of the person involved in this case. All information we have will be

made available at next month's Coroner's hearing.

On receipt of legal advice, Mr Wylie also noted that he had advised 20/20 that the

CHE was prepared to respond to and if necessary refute the specific allegations put to

it by 20/20 before the broadcast. As a result, before the broadcast it had denied

20/20's claim that Don Beattie had pleaded for help from the Hereford Centre on 23

June – two days before his death. Nevertheless, he continued, that inaccurate

allegation had been included in the item which was broadcast.

The impression given in the item that Healthlink South had tried to avoid 20/20's

questions was another aspect of the complaint. Indeed, because of what he described

as the reporter's unprofessional attitude, Mr Wylie said he had spoken to the

programme's Executive Producer while the programme was being prepared. On the

matter of disclosing information, he wrote:

Healthlink South does have a legal problem with providing information to the

news media – especially when it is requested before a Coroner's hearing and

when our legal advice is that we should not be releasing information in this way.

We do not believe that TV3 was fair in the way it failed to explain the

restrictions.

Mr Wylie objected to a number of the item's specific points which he said were

incorrect. First, as Graham was offered residential options by Healthlink South, he

said it was wrong of his sister Jane to claim that no one but her father would look after

him. Secondly, Don Beattie had not been pleading for help up until hours before his

death, as he had been visited earlier that evening by the Police on other matters and

had not expressed any safety concerns. Thirdly, the reporter's opinion (no source

was attributed) that Graham "was known to be a schizophrenic" was incorrect. In

view of Graham's continual resistance to offers of assistance, it was also incorrect for

the reporter to claim that Don Beattie frequently phoned the Hereford Centre seeking

help. Mr Wylie commented that the Centre had an on-going commitment to provide

therapy at short notice, but Graham had rejected repeated offers.

It was also incorrect for the reporter to claim that Graham was trying to get help

himself, in view of his continual resistance to offers of assistance. Although he had

presented himself at Sunnyside Hospital on occasions, he had been assessed as not

requiring admission. Indeed:

During his last admission, he was taken in at the hospital to provide relief for his

father – not because he needed care.

The clear implication in the item that Graham should have been admitted after a

restaurant incident referred to in the programme, Mr Wylie added, was a further

inaccuracy as admission was considered inappropriate at that time by both the

hospital staff and the police doctor. He continued:

Further on, Jane Beattie says "No one listened, no one took responsibility,

listened to Dad, felt for Graham, showed they cared". This statement is grossly

untruthful and inaccurate and is insulting (if not defamatory) to the staff of the

Hereford Centre, as well as others within Healthlink South who had contact with

the family. Many people worked very hard to help Don and Graham.

Describing the item's degree of inaccuracy as staggering and arguing that the misleading

perspective was likely to cause alarm, Mr Wylie concluded by asking TV3 whether it

had considered the impact of the story on the other members of the Beattie family.

The Standards

TV3 assessed the complaints under the nominated standards. The following require

broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

G11 To refrain from broadcasting any programme which, when considered as a

whole:

(i) Simulates news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm

viewers.

The other standard provides:

G17 Unnecessary intrusion in the grief and distress of victims and their families

or friends must be avoided. Funeral coverage should reflect sensitivity and

understanding for the feelings and privacy of the bereaved.

Broadcasters must avoid causing unwarranted distress by showing library

tape of bodies or human remains which could cause distress to surviving

family members. Where possible, family members should be consulted

before the material is used. This standard is not intended to prevent the

use of material which adds significantly to public understanding of an issue

which is in the public arena and interest.

TV3's Response

Dealing first with the complaint about the promo, TV3 insisted that Healthlink

South's response had been unsatisfactory when confirmation was sought on two

matters. Although it had advised 20/20 that the two matters were incorrect, it had

declined to release more information because, it claimed, of the requirements in the

Privacy and Coroners Acts. Healthlink South, TV3 argued, was in reality not

precluded from commenting on the issues raised.

Nevertheless, TV3 accepted that the promo was inaccurate when it reported that Don

Beattie had called the Hereford Centre "hours" before his death. Information obtained

after the promo was broadcast and before the full item was screened disclosed that the

call occurred two days before the deaths.

As for reporting the CHE's position regarding the constraints it was under, TV3

maintained that the position was summarised appropriately when the item reported:

They couldn't possibly comment, there was the Coroners Act and Privacy Act.

With legal advice and Jane's permission we went back to them, but finally they

told us the CHE was worried about the effect of publicity on Jane's health.

Interesting when Jane, more than anyone, needs answers.

TV3 did not agree with Healthlink South that the item implied that the CHE was

looking for ways to avoid answering questions. In addition to the above remark, the

item commented:

The CHE's only on the record comment came from Healthlink South's chief,

Paul Wylie ... in a short statement he says "we have nothing to hide in the care

of or treatment of Graham Beattie".

In response to the other matters, TV3 said that it was Jane Beattie's honestly-held

view, confirmed by Don Beattie's friends, that no one looked after Graham. Graham

Beattie, TV3 continued, was known to his family and friends as a schizophrenic and

the reporter had qualified that statement by adding "whatever the label". TV3 also

maintained that the item was accurate when it reported that Don Beattie had been

pleading for help two days before his death and that he had phoned the centre up to

three times a week for some months seeking help. Moreover, as the CHE noted that

Graham had sought admission to Sunnyside Hospital, it was reasonable for the item to

state that he had sought help. Reporting the refusal of admission after the restaurant

incident was a statement of fact which did not, TV3 insisted, contain the implication

alleged.

In response to the complaint that 20/20 had not validated the item's claims, TV3

pointed to the numerous requests to the CHE for an interview and stated:

Had they been granted these claims could well have been tested on an "on" or

"off" the record basis. As it is, the TV3 Complaints Committee cannot, in the

face of the evidence procured by 20/20, accept without supporting evidence,

simple denials from Healthlink South as to the validity or otherwise of the

claims.

TV3 maintained that only one inaccuracy had been established - the reference in the

promo to Don Beattie's call to the Hereford Centre for help should have reported that

it occurred two days rather than hours before his death - and given what it described as

the overall immateriality of this error, it had declined to take further action beyond

reporting its finding to the staff of 20/20.

TV3 also stated that in view of the one inaccuracy, the item was neither misleading nor

likely to cause alarm. It did not accept that standards G4, G6, G11(i) or G16 had been

contravened.

Further Correspondence

When Healthlink South referred its complaint to the Authority, it advised that Graham

Beattie had been a mental health services client since 1989. It reported that 20/20 had

been advised before the broadcast that, although it had nothing to hide, it could not

answer questions because of privacy issues and the forthcoming Coroner's inquest. It

noted that Graham had a severe personality disorder combined with chronic substance

abuse. Further, he often lied about his links with the Hereford Centre although he

could be seen there within minutes at any time and used its services regularly.

Healthlink South denied that the two calls received by the Centre from Don Beattie on

23 June were pleas for help. The closest his calls came to becoming pleas, it added,

were his expressions of frustration. In referring to the programme, the CHE denied its

claim that Graham Beattie had been living rough in the community, that he was, as

described by one of Don's friends, "a bit like a volcano", or that Jane was correct in

her belief that Graham "slipped through the system". On the CHE's behalf, Mr

Wylie wrote:

I believe this programme unfairly dealt with the issues involved, failed to take

into account the possibility of an alternative viewpoint, contained significant and

avoidable inaccuracies and took no account of the validity of the argument that

the CHE was not able to respond at this time and in this way – choosing instead

to interpret this as hiding from the truth.

In its report to the Authority, TV3 maintained that it had used the best available

resources – Jane Beattie, Don Beattie's closest friend, and what it described as an

"impeccable source". In view of the "wildly divergent views" on the facts, TV3

maintained that the factual issues could not be determined unless the Authority

convened an inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.

Healthlink South disputed this point in its final comment to the Authority. It

enclosed a copy of the Coroner's findings which, it noted, had been reached after the

Coroner had examined, under oath, all the material presented. The Coroner reached the

following conclusion:

My specific finding, with respect to the Hereford Centre, is that Graham Beattie

was not denied assistance on any material matter which the Hereford Centre was

obliged to supply under existing legislation, and in particular in the period of 24

hours or so prior to his death.

In my finding no person or institution should consider themselves or are

responsible for the death of Graham Beattie and his father.

The CHE's Mr Wylie observed:

For TV3 to now hide behind trite statements about "impeccable sources" and

unnamed sources about which it will not reveal name, fact or matter is a pathetic

effort to avoid judgement by the Authority.

The Authority's Findings

The principle of the freedom of the press is securely enshrined in the law. That

principle was very recently reaffirmed in The Board of Trustees of Tuakau College v

Television New Zealand Ltd (High Court, Auckland, 22.3.96, No: 96/96). Only in

extraordinary circumstances could Healthlink South have obtained an injunction to

prevent the broadcast of a programme about the Beatties. On the basis of precedent, a

forthcoming Coroner's hearing is in itself an insufficient ground on which to obtain an

injunction to restrain a broadcaster from screening an item such as "Who Cares?".

TV3 decided to broadcast an item on 20/20 about the deaths of Don and Graham

Beattie before the Coroner's inquest into their deaths. In view of the forthcoming

inquest, Healthlink South (the CHE which is responsible for the mental health services

in Christchurch) considered that it was limited in the amount of information it was

able to supply to TV3. The Coroners Act 1988 provides for a Coroner to call for

medical reports. However, there does not seem to be a provision whereby the

information contained in such a report must remain confidential until presented at the

hearing. A Coroner may prohibit the publication of any evidence given at a hearing

and, in the case of a suicide, there is a general prohibition on the publication of

information as to the manner of death without the Coroner's permission. Healthlink

South considered that the Privacy Act was an additional restraint.

Because it decided to broadcast the item before the inquest and while the CHE

believed that it was very limited in the amount of information it could supply, TV3

carried a major responsibility to ensure that it reported correctly the events leading up

to the deaths. It would have been aware that the Coroner would review all the material

and would comment on the matters with which the item had dealt. Should the

broadcast go badly astray in its presentation or conclusions, TV3 was aware the

reputation of 20/20 for investigative journalism would take a major blow after an

unbiased official investigation.

Nevertheless, TV3 decided to broadcast the item. The Authority's initial assumption

that it did so because of the confidence it had in the reliability of the information it

used, is confirmed in the report it received on the complaint from TV3. In that report

it attributed information to the people who were interviewed on the item, Jane Beattie

and Don Beattie's friends, but also to what it described as "an impeccable source".

The Authority does not intend to speculate on the identity of the source – other than

to note that he or she must have had an intimate knowledge of the Beatties' contact

with the CHE and, in particular, the Hereford Centre. This source, it would appear,

must have been able to provide 20/20 with a record of Don Beattie's phone calls to the

Hereford Centre, and possibly also with the information that Graham Beattie had been

diagnosed as a schizophrenic.

In its complaint, Healthlink South said it was incorrect for the item to report that

Graham Beattie "was known to be a schizophrenic". The Coroner's report recorded

that, in 1989, Graham was tentatively diagnosed as having a "schizophrenic episode",

and in 1992, as a "paranoid schizophrenic". Subsequent diagnoses, the report

continued, cast doubt on the accuracy of these earlier assessments.

"Schizophrenia" is a term often used in the community. Should members of the

Beattie family have been told of these diagnoses in 1989 or 1992, they could well have

used them when explaining Graham's behaviour or condition to their friends and

associates.

The item stated that Graham Beattie "was known to be a schizophrenic ... . Whatever

the label, Graham was doing it hard ...". Thus, regardless of the source of 20/20's

information, the Authority accepts that the item was not incorrect in making the

comment in the way that it did.

TV3 advises that it considers that the issues raised by the complaint are incapable of

resolution unless a formal hearing is held. In the Authority's opinion, it is

unconvincing for a broadcaster to insist that a formal hearing, convened under s.12 of

the Broadcasting Act, is the only way to deal with a complaint where an unnamed but

"impeccable" source has supplied essential aspects of the information advanced in an

item. The Authority expects that the broadcaster would probably claim "media

privilege" at the hearing and decline to reveal the source. The validity of this argument

would probably be resolved by the High Court in due course. A formal hearing is not

a process which fits easily into the Authority's informal, albeit rigorous, procedures,

and is one which is unlikely to resolve the complaint.

Nevertheless, the Authority acknowledges that hearings involving strict compliance

with legal principles and processes may be inevitable should broadcasters rely

regularly on "impeccable" sources and argue for confidentiality on the grounds of

"media privilege".

The Authority would, however, be more likely to view the practice with some degree

of understanding if broadcasters advised it of the protocols followed with

confidentiality and "impeccable" sources, and the degree of support and recognition

that the protocols receive within the organisation of the broadcaster concerned.

The item broadcast on 20/20 on 2 October 1995 was introduced with a reference to the

trend away from the use of psychiatric institutions in the 1990s. It then proceeded to

question the adequacy of the current mental health services in being able to respond to

persistent pleas for help from families who were "left to live with the terrible

consequences", when "another psychiatric patient runs amok", under the 90s mental

health policy of "community care".

Thus, the programme began with an overview statement relating to policy. Evidently

the makers felt it was sufficient to detail what had happened in one tragic and

problematic case within that context, assuming that the connection (between the case

and legislative framework) was self-evident. In fact, by failing to re-address the

legislative framework, it effectively shifted accountability from policy to practice.

Some responsibility for the eventual narrower focus of the item must lie with the

CHE, which could usefully have explained the situation without any need to comment

on the specifics of the Beatties' case. But there was poor cooperation between the

CHE and 20/20, and the CHE cooperated in the most minimal way, citing the

Coroners and Privacy Acts as its reason for not participating further. Because it chose

this course of action, it was unable to refute the item's eventual clear inference that

responsibility for the tragedy lay squarely at its feet.

Not surprisingly, Healthlink South complained about the item and in its complaint

averred that it had done all it was legally required to do. The appropriateness of its

actions was confirmed by the Coroner, but the fact that the Coroner also reported that

the treatment of Graham Beattie highlighted a "vivid gap" in the law, tended to

reinforce the suggestion that TV3's approach was justified and that the issue was

worth a more thorough examination.

Indeed, the Coroner referred at length to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment

and Treatment) Act 1992 under which it was not possible to detain a person with a

severe personality disorder. Graham Beattie had been diagnosed as such in recent

years, and the Coroner concluded:

My recommendation under s15(1)(b) of the Coroners Act and comments are

that this case highlights in a vivid way a gap in the Mental Health legislation

affecting persons with severe personality disorders coupled with elements of

drug and alcohol abuse and I note that gap has been examined by the Law

Commission in 1994.

In particular, this case highlights the difficulty of applying the concept of

"disorder of volition" (as referred to in the definition of "mental disorder" in s2,

MH Act) to a person such as Graham Beattie, who exhibited disturbed

behaviour but, on the evidence, retained the ability to choose.

In view of his concern about the legislative gap, the Coroner recommended:

I would recommend that the relevant material from this Inquest be referred to the

Psychiatric Enquiry chaired by retired Judge Mason, which enquiry I understand

is presently reviewing mental health legislation with particular reference to the

question of whether the condition of severe personality disorder should more

clearly come within the concept of mental disorder.

The Authority notes that the Coroner's finding was equivocal. While he stated clearly

that Healthlink South had done nothing remiss, and was not responsible for the

tragedies, he indicated that there was cause for concern about the scope of the Act

for which it had responsibility. Whereas this distinction, released many months after

the broadcast, tended to support the approach adopted by 20/20, the report did not

concur with the programme's thrust to apportion responsibility.

Healthlink South also complained that it was apparent that TV3 had "predetermined"

its approach to the issue.

On this point, the Authority observes that the preparation of an item such as "Who

Cares?" involves research before filming is contemplated, and some considerable time

before the final scripting and editing is carried out. Such research may well allow the

programme makers to reach tentative conclusions before filming begins. These

tentative conclusions allow questions to be formulated, and asked, of the different

people who it is decided should be interviewed on camera. The answers given may

confirm or dispel the tentative conclusions. While such a process can be described as

amounting to a "predetermined approach", it can also be thought to be indicative of

thorough research to ensure that the time of both the programme makers and the

spokespersons interviewed is not wasted by asking irrelevant or facile questions.

With regard to the item which was broadcast, there was, as noted, a lack of co-

operation between the broadcaster and the organisation under investigation. This

occurred not only because of the differing agendas held by each, but was also

seemingly soured by personal animosity as each organisation was working under

vastly different constraints. Whereas 20/20 had to exercise great care to ensure factual

accuracy, balance and fairness, Healthlink South was aware that the item could, and in

all likelihood would, approach the issues in a way which radically varied from its

perspective. Further, 20/20 was making an item in an environment in which there was

widespread scepticism in the community about the quality of mental health services.

Indeed, the Authority notes that the item's tone in respect of the CHE's involvement

was sceptical, and by employing such a tone, emphasised the CHE's purported failure

to avert the crisis at the centre of the story.

In view of the circumstances outlined above, the Authority believes that it is

appropriate to deal with these complaints in a way which it has not followed

previously. The Authority considers that, in view of the disparity of the conclusions

to be drawn from the facts advanced, it is unable to reach a finding on each of the

allegations of factual inaccuracy. Neither case in total, nor in specific detail, is

accepted as being correct, or indeed incorrect. In respect of standard G1, the

Authority is not convinced, on the balance of probabilities that, on the information

before it, it could or should make a finding of breach against the broadcaster, TV3.

With regard to the other standards allegedly breached, the Authority again concludes

that the determination of these aspects, in view of the unresolved factual matters, does

not justify upholding the complaint.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
1 August 1996

Appendix

Healthlink South's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited - 25 October 1995

Following some correspondence about the forthcoming programme with the

broadcaster, the Chief Executive of Healthlink South (Paul Wylie) complained

formally to TV3 Network Services Ltd about a promo for - broadcast on 25

September - and aspects of the item "Who Cares?", broadcast on 20/20 between 7.30 -

8.30pm on 2 October 1995. The item complained about dealt with the murder/suicide

involving the Beattie family and, it was argued, standards G1, G4, G6, G11(i) and G17

were contravened.

The complaint about the promo (originally made to TV3 in a letter dated 28

September) focussed on the claims, first, that "desperate pleas for help went unheard

and hours later a son killed his father", and secondly, that the father had been

"pleading that someone help his son" up to three times a week for three months. Both

statements, Healthlink South maintained, were unfair and inaccurate.

In the complaint following the broadcast of the substantive item, Healthlink South

repeated the explanation made when the programme was being prepared, that 20/20

had been advised that Healthlink South staff were restricted about the matters on

which they could comment in view of privacy obligations and the Coroners Act. In

addition, it wrote:

We are further constrained by concerns relating to other family members

involved in this situation. There is the potential for other people to be adversely

affected by publicity relating to this case.

Mr Wylie of Healthlink South also advised:

I reiterate that Healthlink South has nothing to hide in relation to the care and

treatment of the person involved in this case. All information we have will be

made available at next month's Coroner's hearing.

Acting on legal advice to the effect that while it could not participate in open

discussion it could nevertheless refute any comments known to be untrue before the

programme went to air, on Healthlink South's behalf Mr Wylie said it had advised

TV3 before the broadcast that two claims put to it by TV3 were incorrect. He added:

These claims were: i) "that Don Beattie rang the Hereford Centre pleading for

help for his son on the night of Friday 23 June, two days before his death," and

ii) "that Graham tried to admit himself to Sunnyside Hospital on the Saturday

..., the day before he killed his father and took his own life." Subsequently, the

first of those two claims was still reported as fact in the actual broadcast, the

second was not mentioned. This was in spite of my categorical statement that

both claims were incorrect.

Mr Wylie objected to the impression given in the broadcast that Healthlink South had

tried to avoid TV3's questions. He and the CHE's Communications Executive had

spoken at length to 20/20's staff and were as open as the legal advice allowed and,

moreover, because of the reporter's unprofessional attitude at that time, had also

spoken to 20/20's Executive Producer (Mr Keith Slater).

With regard to the information made available to the Beattie family - a matter dealt

with during the broadcast - Mr Wylie wrote:

For the record, following a direct request to Healthlink South from Jane for

information about her brother, a meeting was recently held, at which her

brother's psychiatrist and case manager were both present along with a District

Inspector of Mental Health. Healthlink South has no problem with providing

information requested by families. Mr Slater was made aware that this meeting

was planned.

Mr Wylie also referred to the Health Information Privacy Code which did not accept

that health information could be disclosed automatically to a family member after a

person's death. Referring to Healthlink South's obligations, he stated:

Healthlink South does have a legal problem with providing information to the

news media - especially when it is requested before a Coroner's hearing and

when our legal advice is that we should not be releasing information in this way.

We do not believe that TV3 was fair in the way it failed to explain the

restrictions.

He maintained that the Coroner's Court hearing would disclose that Healthlink South

had conducted themselves appropriately. He then commented on the matters which,

because of the item, were now a matter of public record.

First, Jane Beattie had stated during the item that "No one else would look after him

so Dad had to take Graham in". That statement, said Mr Wylie, was untrue as

residential options were offered to Graham which, with one exception, he refused.

Secondly, the reporter's claim that Don Beattie "was pleading for help up until hours

before his death" was untrue with respect to Healthlink South. The police had visited

the home, Mr Wylie noted, on other matters that evening and no safety concerns were

expressed to Healthlink South by Don (the father) and no action was thought

necessary by the police.

Thirdly, the reporter's claim that Graham was "known to be a schizophrenic" was

also untrue. No source was cited for what appeared to be the reporter's opinion

which, it was said, could affect public understanding of schizophrenia.

The reporter also claimed "for three months before his death, Don Beattie was

phoning here (the Hereford Centre) up to three times a week pleading that someone

help his son". In fact, Mr Wylie stated, Graham had rejected the repeated attempts to

assist him. Moreover, he observed, the Hereford Centre team had an ongoing

commitment to provide therapy at short notice.

The next alleged inaccuracy was:

Further on, the reporter claims "they knew that Graham was even trying to get

help for himself". This is untrue. Graham actively resisted all attempts to

provide help.

When Graham Beattie presented himself at Sunnyside on occasions, Mr Wylie

continued, he was assisted but was assessed as not requiring admission. Indeed:

During his last admission, he was taken in at the hospital to provide relief for his

father - not because he needed care.

Healthlink South's Mr Wylie commented generally on the above matters:

No attempt was made by TV3 to test the validity of any of these claims with

Healthlink South prior to broadcast. As I have already explained, Healthlink

South was able to refute untrue comments (as in this letter) and TV3 was aware

of this and did test two other claims (though chose to ignore our response in the

case of one of those claims).

The letter of complaint then gave further examples of claimed inaccuracies. For

example, there was a clear implication by the reporter that after an incident outside a

restaurant, Graham Beattie should have been admitted to hospital. That was the

implication, Mr Wylie wrote, despite the assessment by the hospital staff, and the

police doctor, that admission was inappropriate.

He continued:

Further on, Jane Beattie says "No one listened, no one took responsibility,

listened to Dad, felt for Graham, show they cared". This statement is grossly

untruthful and inaccurate and is insulting (if not defamatory) to the staff of the

Hereford Centre, as well as others within Healthlink South who had contact with

the family. Many people worked very hard to help Don and Graham.

Further on, the reporter says "Most disturbing of all though, was Don Beattie's

last desperate pleas to the Hereford Centre. On Friday 23rd of June he phoned

here crying, repeatedly saying "help me, help me". This is quite untruthful and

inaccurate. Even worse, I had responded to [20/20's] Anna Kenna's request

asking me to confirm the accuracy of this statement by saying that it was

incorrect. Therefore, TV3 deliberately broadcast a statement it knew to be

wrong.

Pointing to the fact that community care was in the public limelight at present, Mr

Wylie said the item's level of inaccuracy was staggering, that the events had not been

dealt with fairly and the misleading perspective advanced was likely to cause alarm.

He said that the programme was a "gross slur" on the staff at the Hereford Centre and,

noting that the information was provided solely for the purpose of the complaint to

TV3, concluded:

Finally, I wish to draw your personal attention to the family history in this case.

A father murdered; a mother and son taking their own lives; and two daughters

who by Jane Beattie's own public admission are "being in hospital". Within the

limits available to us we tried to tell your staff of the ongoing risks to others.

TV3 has had its story but the health services will still have to go on meeting the

needs of the two daughters. If TV3 is a responsible body I would ask that you

think about it.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 19 December 1995

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TV3 first considered the

claim about the two items on which confirmation had been sought which were:

(a) Don Beattie rang the Hereford Centre pleading for help for his son on the

night of Friday 23rd of June 1995, two days before his death; and

(b) that Graham [Beattie] tried to admit himself to Sunnyside Hospital on the

Saturday, the day before he killed his father and took his own life.

TV3 responded:

The response from Healthlink South does not answer either of the questions

except to claim that the information quoted by Ms Kenna was incorrect. The

reply claimed the information could not be disclosed by virtue of the Privacy

Act and the Coroner's Act.

The TV3 Complaints Committee does not accept Healthlink South was

precluded from commenting in some form on the two issues raised in Ms

Kenna's letter of 25th September.

Nevertheless, it was accepted that the promo was inaccurate when it reported that

Don Beattie had called the Centre "hours" before his death. Between the time of the

broadcast of the promo on 25 September and the broadcast of the item on 2 October,

TV3 said, it had ascertained from other reliable sources that the call occurred two days

before the deaths of Don and Graham Beattie.

TV3 then considered the other allegations and said that if they had substance, it would

decide whether they fell within any of the five standards allegedly transgressed.

1. In response to the complaint that the item failed to explain the various

constraints on Healthlink South, TV3 said that it considered the following

comment included in the broadcast was a reasonable and fair summary of the

Crown Health Enterprise's (CHE) position.

They couldnÕt possibly comment, there was the Coroners Act and Privacy

Act. With legal advice and Jane's permission we went back to them, but

finally they told us the CHE was worried about the effect of publicity on

Jane's health. Interesting when Jane, more than anyone, needs answers.

2. As for the complaint about the use of the material for which confirmation was

sought, TV3 maintained that the first was essentially correct. The matter raised

in the second was not used in the broadcast and, accordingly, did not involve a

matter of broadcasting standards.

3. With regard to the claim that the programme gave the impression that Healthlink

South was looking for ways to avoid answering 20/20's questions, TV3 did not

accept the allegation and maintained that the statement above (in para 1) was a

fair summary.

4. To the allegation that the reporter was hostile and unprofessional, TV3 said it

was not prepared to decide who had the more accurate recall of the conversation

between its reporter and Healthlink South's staff when it referred to the use of

lawyers.

5. As for the complaint about the programme's reference to "the CHE's only on

the record comment", TV3 again referred to the comment (in para 1) which was

followed by the remarks:

The CHE's only on the record comment came from Healthlink South's

chief, Paul Wylie ... in a short statement he says "we have nothing to hide

in the care or treatment of Graham Beattie".

TV3 maintained that the above statement was a reasonable summary of Mr

Wylie's on-the-record comment as contained in his letters to TV3.

6. As it was Ms Jane Beattie's honestly-held view that "no one else would look

after him", and as the statement was corroborated by Don Beattie's friends and

other confidential sources, and taking into account Healthlink South's almost

total refusal to comment, TV3 decided that the statement was, in addition to

being honestly held opinion, accurate on the evidence available.

7. Having regard to the statement that Don Beattie "was pleading for help up until

hours before his death", together with the comment that he was crying when he

phoned the Hereford Centre on Friday 23 - two days before his death - TV3

stated that the two statements - together - were a fair and reasonable

presentation of the time between Mr Beattie's call and the time of his death.

8. As Graham Beattie was known to his family, friends and mental health workers

as a "schizophrenic", and as the commentary added the qualification "whatever

the label", TV3 maintained that the comment was not inaccurate.

9. Whether Don Beattie received help or not, TV3 argued, did not invalidate the

fact that he phoned the Hereford Centre up to three times a week pleading for

help. The statement, TV3 said, was accurate and verifiable by both families and

friends.

10. TV3 maintained that the statement "They knew that Graham was even trying to

get help for himself", was reasonable given the information available and justified

by Healthlink South's own statement - "when Graham did present himself at

Sunnyside on occasions ... ."

11. In response to the complaint that 20/20 had made no attempt to test the validity

of any of the claims, TV3 pointed out that there had been numerous requests to

Healthlink South for an interview. It stated:

Had they been granted these claims could well have been tested on an ÔonÕ

or ÔoffÕ the record basis. As it is, the TV3 Complaints Committee cannot,

in the face of the evidence procured by 20/20, accept without supporting

evidence, simple denials from Healthlink South as to the validity or

otherwise of the claims.

12. TV3 maintained that the comment, "He was taken to Sunnyside psychiatric

hospital but was soon back on the streets" was a statement of fact which did not

carry the implications alleged.

13. As the statement in the item:

No one listened, no one took responsibility, listened to Dad, felt for

Graham, showed they cared ...

was clearly identified as Jane's honestly held opinion, and was followed by her

comment on the way she had been treated by doctors, TV3 believed the

testimony was justified.

14. TV3 acknowledged that Healthlink South had denied the statement about Don

Beattie's desperate pleas on Friday 23 June. However, it had not commented

further and in view of the other information available, TV3 considered that the

statement was justified.

15. As for the general complaint that it did not deal with the case fairly, TV3 said

only one inaccuracy had been established. The item was not misleading, it

continued, and was unlikely to cause alarm. As news or events were not

simulated, standard G11(i) was not in peril. Dealing with the one acknowledged

error, TV3 argued that it was insufficiently material to mislead or alarm.

16. Rather than involve unnecessary intrusion, TV3 said that both Jane and her

sister felt stronger having participated in the item.

In conclusion, TV3 wrote:

Finally, the TV3 Complaints Committee finds your complaint is, in part, and

only in part, upheld with regard to the use of the word "hours" in the

programme trailer broadcast on 25th September. The Complaints Committee

finds that, in the context of the trailer, the time frame might have been expressed

as ÔdaysÕ.

However, given the overall immateriality of the error the TV3 Complaints

Committee will not, beyond communicating this finding to 20/20 personnel, take

further action.

Healthlink South's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 1

February 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, on Healthlink South's behalf Mr Wylie referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989.

By way of background, he noted that Graham Beattie had been a client of the mental

health service since 1989. He reported that TV3 had contacted the CHE in September

1995 seeking more information about the alleged murder-suicide involving Graham

Beattie and his father (Don Beattie). The questions involved intervention both

generally and in the particular case, and TV3 was told that the CHE could not respond

to the questions because of privacy issues and because the Coroner's inquest into the

deaths had not yet gone before the Court. Mr Wylie noted that TV3 had been sent a

fax which stated that:

... all information would be made available through the proper, legal channels and

that Healthlink South had nothing to hide. That fax also mentioned the potential

for other people to be adversely affected by publicity relating to the case.

TV3 telephoned to ask if the CHE was concerned about Jane Beattie (Graham's sister)

who was also a client of the CHE's mental health services.

In response, TV3 was told that Healthlink South, on legal advice, was able to refute

statements which it knew to be inaccurate. It promptly received a fax outlining two

scenarios which were refuted by Healthlink South. However:

Later that same day TV3 ran a promo for the following week's programme.

This promo included as fact one of the scenarios specifically refuted by

Healthlink South earlier that day.

Healthlink South lodged a formal complaint about the promo and another one about

the full programme. It observed:

An extremely thorough 30 page report on Graham Beattie was prepared for the

coroner by the Healthlink South psychiatrist with responsibility for Graham's

care in the last year or so. That report addresses the issues raised by TV3.

However, the coroner is adamant that this document remains confidential until

the coroner's hearing into the two deaths (now scheduled for early April).

The complaint then provided some information about Graham Beattie and his

relationship with Healthlink South's services.

As his primary problem, Graham had a severe personality disorder with some

possible instability of mood, combined with chronic substance abuse. He did

not have a major mental illness and long term confinement in a psychiatric

hospital was not an appropriate management option. He did have intermittent

contact with Healthlink South's mental health services over six years. On

occasions he sought sanctuary in hospital with minimal evidence of psychiatric

disturbance but a great deal of evidence of social chaos caused by over-spending

(and consequent indebtedness) deriving from inability to delay self gratification

or abandon drug and alcohol use.

Graham gained considerable experience at presenting himself with a wide range

of contrived symptoms which gained him admission to hospital which might

have been "safe" for all concerned but which was therapeutically inappropriate,

a no-exit route. These stays were often an attempt to establish "illness"

credentials or merely to get free accommodation and escape his creditors. He

would stay anything from a day or so (discharging himself when he wanted illicit

drugs and alcohol achievable only outside) to longer periods when he would use

the hospital as a way of saving money.

He often lied about his links with the Hereford Centre, claiming that he could not

get seen there, when in fact he could always be seen there literally within

minutes, seven days a week, by someone who knew him well.

Noting other ways Graham Beattie resisted attempts to help him, Healthlink South

attached articles on personality disorder, schizophrenia and a mental health service to

assist the Authority understand the situation relating to him.

TV3's fax, Healthlink South reported, read in part:

Don Beattie rang the Hereford Centre pleading for help for his son on the night

of Friday 23 June, two days before his death. We also have reports that Graham

tried to admit himself to Sunnyside Hospital on the Saturday ... the day before

he killed his father and took his own life.

Healthlink South responded by fax:

... much of the information which you are quoting is incorrect - including the two

reports contained in your fax this morning.

The promo broadcast later that day stated:

... that "desperate pleas for help went unheard and hours later a son killed his

father" and then that the father had been calling up to three times a week for

three months "pleading that someone help his son".

Mr Wylie commented:

This was in spite of my specific statement that both claims were incorrect. No

mention was made of Healthlink South's rebuttals.

Pointing out that Don Beattie was in regular contact with the staff at the Hereford

Centre and knew he could seek assistance at any time, on Healthlink South's behalf

Mr Wylie recorded:

... but there is no record of his doing this in the days or weeks leading up to the

death.

He added:

Our staff had two telephone calls from Don Beattie on Friday 23 June 1995. In

the first call Don told our staff that he had doubts as to whether Graham would

come in that day for an appointment with a therapist which had been made at

his own request two days before. Don said he would go home and bring Graham

to the centre. In the second call he said he was having difficulty getting Graham

to come in. Graham also spoke to staff on the second call and said he had

decided not to come in as he was not feeling well enough. No other concerns

were expressed at this time by Don or Graham and no subsequent call was made

by either man seeking advice or assistance.

In other words, Healthlink South stressed, there were no pleas for help and no history

of Don calling up to three times a week for three months for someone to help his son.

Don frequently expressed his frustrations but that was "the nearest he got to pleading

for help".

The CHE also reported that the police had visited the Beattie home on 23 June on

another matter and, apparently, Don did not express any concerns.

Healthlink South's Mr Wylie then dealt with the programme.

First, in contradiction to the item's claim that Graham Beattie had been living rough in

the community, Healthlink South staff said he maintained a high standard of personal

care and always lived in a flat or with his father.

It was also untrue for Jane Beattie to state that Dad was required to look after him as

residential options were offered to, and refused by, Graham Beattie.

Healthlink South repeated the aspects of the matters contained in the original

complaint that referred to Don, pleading for help until hours before his death, that

Graham "was known to be a schizophrenic", and that Don had been telephoning the

Hereford Centre seeking help. As for the aspect of the item which reported that one

of Don's friends recalled Don's criticism of Healthlink South, it wrote:

Healthlink South acknowledged only too well that Graham would benefit from

skilled help and we had an ongoing commitment to offer short notice therapy

from skilled staff if ever Graham indicated he was receptive to this. We did not

always agree with Graham's assessment that he needed this treatment in a

hospital setting, indeed this would have been a retrograde step. It may well have

been a combination of Graham's belief that he ought to be in hospital and Don's

frustration at having to cope with Graham's sometimes antisocial behaviour that

led Don to make a comment such as this.

Healthlink South denied the truth of the reporter's comment that Don Beattie's

friends knew "that Graham was even trying to get help himself". It reiterated the

complaint in respect of the implication contained in the item's reference to the

restaurant incident. In addition, in response to one of Graham's friends who said:

" ... he was a bit like a volcano, the rumblings were there obviously and then it

got worse and worse ... ." Firstly, we must again strongly refute the suggestion

that Graham Beattie was unable to get help. Secondly, we must point out that

while Graham was tall our staff were never afraid of him and there are no known

incidents of physical violence perpetrated by Graham against others.

It also repeated its refutation of Jane Beattie's statement that no one listened or cared

or that Don had cried when seeking help on Sunday 23 June. Further, it stated, the

implication that Healthlink South was resisting the disclosure of information was

misleading and unbalanced.

Mr Wylie said that it had been unable to explain fully its concern about the impact of

the publicity on other people as it was unaware whether TV3 knew of the sister who

was a long term patient in the mental health service. It now knew, from the

programme, that TV3 was aware of the other sister's circumstances. It wrote:

The implication by TV3 is that Healthlink South was hiding from those seeking

information. This is not the case. Following a direct request to Healthlink South

from Jane for information about her brother, a meeting was held at which her

brother's psychiatrist and case manager were both present along with a District

Inspector of Mental Health. This meeting was offered before the programme

went to air and effected shortly after. Healthlink South has no problem with

providing information requested by families.

It disputed Jane's belief that Graham had "slipped through the system" and her

comment in the item that, "off-the-record", professionals shared that view.

By way of general comment, Mr Wylie wrote:

I believe this programme unfairly dealt with the issues involved, failed to take

into account the possibility of an alternative viewpoint, contained significant and

avoidable inaccuracies and took no account of the validity of the argument that

the CHE was not able to respond at this time and in this way - choosing instead

to interpret this as hiding from the truth.

In view of the attitude displayed he considered that 20/20 had a pre-set agenda where

the CHE was clearly to blame. There were no adequate checks to test the validity of

the claims. It was not acceptable, he insisted, to "simply regurgitate the claims of

others" when they were hearsay and refuted by those directly involved. The view

presented was not only a gross slur on the staff at the Hereford Centre but was also

misleading and likely to cause alarm.

Referring to extensive experience with the media held by himself and the

Communications Executive, Mr Wylie wrote:

We know the rules. We both wrote the notes immediately the conversations

were completed. We are both prepared to provide statutory affidavits if

necessary. Enquiries were made in a hostile manner to suit a pre-ordained theme

and conclusion.

Overall, he concluded the item was neither truthful nor accurate, it did not deal justly

with Healthlink South staff, and it lacked balance, impartiality and fairness.

Moreover, family members were exploited in a manner which could have long term

repercussions for them.

It added the following footnote:

Please note that the information contained in this letter includes details which are

being provided to you with the sole purpose of complying with the

requirements of the guidelines for "Television and Radio Complaints

Procedures". The information should be regarded as private and confidential in

all other respects.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 27 March 1996

In its report to the Authority, TV3 stated that the item was broadcast against a

background of "extreme concern" about the quality of care provided by the CHE. It

appended some newspaper articles to substantiate that comment.

On the basis that the complaint alleged that the item was so incorrect as to be

misleading, TV3 countered by stating that it had used the best available sources -

especially Jane Beattie and Don Beattie's closest friend in whom he confided and,

additionally, an "impeccable" source.. TV3 declined to reveal the friend's name or the

other sources used.

To resolve the competing views, TV3 said that the following step was necessary:

It is TV3's view that the Authority is unable to properly determine this

complaint because of the wildly divergent views of facts. In view of the

information TV3 has to hand, particularly from its unnamed source, it will,

under no circumstances, accept the assertions of factual errors suggested by Mr

Wylie.

In short, unless the Authority is prepared to convene an inquiry, exercising its

powers under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, TV3 holds the view that

matters of fact are incapable of determination.

Nevertheless, TV3 considered that the Authority should be able to decide whether

Healthlink South's attitude in refusing to answer questions about the Beatties was fair.

It wrote:

It was always open to Healthlink South to provide evidence of a contrary view

(as it appears to finally have done so) in confidence, a confidence any reporter is

often asked to observe and which is observed.

Healthlink South's Final Comment - 15 May 1996

While noting that TV3 maintained that the broadcast relied on the "best available

sources", Healthlink South's Mr Wylie pointed out that its response was based on its

staff's written notes and statements which had subsequently been presented under

oath in the Coroner's Court.

The Coroner's finding was attached.

Mr Wylie then pointed to the Coroner's following specific findings:

"My specific finding, with respect to the Hereford Centre, is that Graham

Beattie was not denied assistance on any material matter which the Hereford

Centre was obliged to supply under existing legislation, and in particular in the

period of 24 hours or so prior to his death.

In my finding no person or institution should consider themselves or are

responsible for the death of Graham Beattie and his father."

As the Coroner had heard, and reached a decision on, all the evidence relating to the

incidents, Mr Wylie argued that the Authority was able to determine the factual

aspects of the complaint. TV3's "best available sources", he insisted, were "not good

enough".

Contending that TV3 failed to check the information sufficiently at the time and thus

broadcast incorrect information, and pointing out that TV3 was aware that the facts

would be disclosed at the Coroner's Court hearing then expected within weeks and

that Healthlink South had challenged some of the "facts" presented by TV3, Mr Wylie

maintained that TV3 went ahead with a programme because the "facts" fitted its

predetermined position. He concluded:

For TV3 to now hide behind trite statements about "impeccable sources" and

unnamed sources about which it will not reveal name, fact or matter is a pathetic

effort to avoid judgement by the Authority.