BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An item disclosing that a teacher at Kings College in Auckland had been accused earlier

in his career of indecently assaulting a pupil at a school in England was broadcast on

60 Minutes between 7.30–8.30pm on Sunday 26 June. It was also reported that the

teacher, because of the incident, had later been barred from teaching in the United

Kingdom. The item said that Kings had been aware of the assault when he was

employed but the information was confined to some senior staff.

Kings College and its headmaster, Mr John Taylor, complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd that the item was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced in a number of aspects

and in breach of the broadcasting standards.

Denying that the item was unfair, inaccurate or unbalanced, TVNZ declined to uphold

the complaints. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Kings College and its headmaster

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority upheld the aspects of the complaint that the

item was inaccurate and unfair when it alleged that Kings College and its headmaster

put pressure on parents and pupils not to speak to 60 Minutes and that Mr Taylor had

sworn Mr Dodd to secrecy. It declined to uphold the other seven aspects including the

two central issues ie the extent of Mr Taylor's knowledge and the overall tone of the

item.

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

has determined the complaints without a formal hearing.

The Programme

A 60 Minutes item examined aspects of the professional career of Mr Paul Dodd, a

history teacher appointed to Kings College in 1988. The introduction outlined the

matters to be included when it stated that Mr Dodd had come from England and

reported:

But what no one was told except for a select few was that Paul Dodd had been

accused of indecently assaulting one of his pupils. His name was subsequently

placed on a secret list and he was banned from teaching anywhere in the United

Kingdom.

The programme included the following information:

* Mr Dodd indecently assaulted a 10 year-old boy at Whitgift School in

England;

*Kings headmaster, John Taylor, knew when he appointed him that Mr

Dodd had indecently assaulted a boy in England;

* A former friend and teaching colleague, Mr Ian Mucklejohn, was disclosing

the story because of what he had learned about Mr Dodd's past and he

said that the assault consisted of grabbing the pupil's genitals;

* Mr Dodd had initially told Mr Mucklejohn that he had left England

because he had been dismissed for hitting a child – for the second time –

having lost his temper;

* According to a young man who was interviewed on the programme, Mr

Dodd, his teacher, had sexually propositioned him when he was a 16 year-

old school boy;

* Because of his assault on the 10 year-old at Whitgift, Mr Dodd was placed

on the list (known as List 99) by the UK Department of Education and

Science as unsuitable for teaching children;

* John Taylor of Kings apparently swore Mr Dodd to secrecy when he

hired him and told only a handful of senior staff about Mr Dodd's past;

* John Taylor had declined to be interviewed but had issued a statement

noting:

- Mr Dodd had left his teaching position in England because of an

  alleged incident which had been reported to the authorities

- his decision to hire Mr Dodd was carefully considered

- sufficient senior staff knew of the incident to ensure that Mr Dodd

  was closely monitored

- Mr Dodd was an outstanding teacher

- there was one complaint about Mr Dodd's behaviour around the

  boys;

* Several parents and students said they had been pressured by Kings old

boys and staff not to have contact with 60 Minutes;

* Mr Dodd's banning on List 99 had been partially lifted recently and the

prohibition now applied only to teaching pupils under 14 years.

The Complaint

The barrister for Kings College and Mr John Taylor (Mr R H Hansen) complained to

TVNZ that the item was inaccurate and unfair in the following respects:

* Mr Taylor denied demanding secrecy from Mr Dodd and was not asked to

comment on the allegation that he had demanded secrecy;

* The item failed to explain adequately the circumstances relating to Mr

Dodd's employment at Kings;

* Mr Taylor did not know that Mr Dodd had attacked a child. He knew

that there was an allegation but the investigation had not been completed;

* As Mr Taylor had advised 60 Minutes, Mr Dodd was not on List 99 when

he was employed at Kings;

* The programme did not include the points that before Mr Dodd was hired,

Mr Taylor spoke to both the headmaster of a private school in New

Zealand where he had been for one term, and the headmaster (Mr Raeburn)

at Whitgift;

* The item did not refer to the fact that Mr Dodd was employed initially on

a probationary basis.

Summarising these points, Mr Hansen wrote:

The omission of these matters, all of which were known to the programme's

producer, leave the quite unjustified impression that Mr Taylor employed Dodd

without proper consultation and without taking proper steps to protect the

interest of his pupils. That innuendo is both false and damaging to Mr Taylor's

professional reputation.

In addition, the complainants claimed that the programme made the false suggestion

that Mr Taylor, by smoothing over one incident involving Mr Dodd, had failed to act.

Furthermore, Mr Taylor denied ever pressuring parents not to speak to 60 Minutes.

Overall, Mr Hansen said, the item lacked balance and was unfair to both Mr Taylor

and Kings. Moreover, TVNZ's staff acted unprofessionally in recording part of the

first interview with Mr Taylor without his knowledge or permission and had sought

comment from former pupils by hinting at the availability of financial and other

inducements. A retraction and payment of costs were requested.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint

After confirming the relevant standards with the complainants, TVNZ assessed the

complaints under standards G1, G4 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice. They 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.

In addition, TVNZ's solicitors advised the complainants' barrister (Mr Hansen) that a

retraction was not considered warranted and that any legal proceedings would be

defended.

TVNZ began by noting that the main facts in the programme appeared to go

unchallenged. In dealing with the specific points, it made the following response:

* The item reported that "it seems" that Mr Taylor swore Mr Dodd to

secrecy;

* Mr Taylor acknowledged "in essence" to 60 Minutes' reporter that Mr

Dodd was expected to keep quiet about his background.

* TVNZ reported:

Mr Dodd advised 60 Minutes that he told the authorities at Kings

College everything. This was confirmed by Mr Mucklejohn.

At the meeting Ms Westcott had with Mr Taylor this issue was also

put to Mr Taylor. In short, Mr Taylor advised that he knew what

the indiscretion was.

* The item had not stated that Mr Dodd was on List 99 at the time of his

appointment to Kings. It had said that it had wanted to ask Mr Taylor

why he had continued to employ Mr Dodd knowing that he was on the

List and TVNZ added:

Mr Taylor advised Ms Westcott that Mr Dodd actually told Mr

Taylor that he was on a list that excluded him from teaching in

England.

* The item reported that the Whitgift headmaster – while reporting Mr Dodd

to the British authorities - had given him a glowing reference;

* Mr Taylor's contact with other schools in New Zealand was not relevant

to the story;

* Specific comment about Mr Dodd's probationary appointment was not

necessary in view of the implication that his behaviour was to be

monitored by senior staff;

* The use of the phrase "smoothed over" did not suggest that Mr Taylor

failed to act on the complaint;

* In view of the reactions reported to 60 Minutes of the people approached

by Mr Taylor, and his letter to all parents, TVNZ said it was "irrefutable"

that parents were "actively discouraged" from speaking to 60 Minutes.

TVNZ did not accept that its staff had acted unprofessionally and maintained that Mr

Taylor was aware of the tape recording which was turned off at his request and that

no inducements were offered to anyone. TVNZ commented to the complainants'

barrister:

The [Complaints] Committee understands that the subject matter of the

programme must be painful to Mr Taylor. Nevertheless, it is clear that 60

Minutes went to a great deal of effort and undertook a great deal of research in

acquiring the facts for this story which, we repeat, was clearly a matter of public

interest. The team travelled around the world to verify facts and to interview

key people.

As there were no inaccuracies, TVNZ said that the standard G1 complaint was not

upheld. Considerable effort, it continued, was made to obtain Mr Taylor's comments

on the issues and he was not dealt with unfairly in contravention of standard G4.

With regard to standard G6, TVNZ wrote:

G6 has to do with balance and impartiality, and the committee took the view

that a tricky subject was handled professionally and in a balanced manner. All

relevant viewpoints were reflected either as interview extracts from those

prepared to appear on camera, or as quotations from those (including Mr

Taylor) who preferred to respond in writing.

Expressing regret that the complainants were dismayed by the programme, TVNZ

declined to uphold any aspect of the complaints.

Referral of the Complaint to the Authority and Further Correspondence

When Mr Hansen on the complainants' behalf referred the complaints to the

Authority, he included the following background material:

* Mr Dodd left Whitgift School as the result of an alleged indecent assault

on a pupil there for which no criminal charges were laid and, subsequent to

his employment at Kings College, he was placed on what is known as List

99;

* Apparently as a result of Mr Mucklejohn's "sense of grievance", a 60

Minutes reporter visited Mr Taylor in his office and, unknown to Mr

Taylor, recorded part of the interview. As a result, subsequent contact

between TVNZ and Kings College had been in writing.

He then made the following points in regard to TVNZ's response to the complaints:

* The use of "it seems" with reference to the comment that Mr Taylor

swore Mr Dodd to secrecy did not detract from the thrust of the

observation;

* A response to the comment in TVNZ's reply that Mr Taylor "knew

Dodd had attacked a child" was deferred until a record of the interview

between Mr Taylor and the 60 Minutes reporter was made available;

* The item's transcript stated that the reporter said Mr Dodd was on List

99 when he was employed by Kings, despite being specifically advised

before the broadcast that this was not the case;

* The complainants maintained that the item's omission of any reference to

Mr Taylor's enquiries with two former headmasters before employing Mr

Dodd "left a quite misleading impression";

* The fact that Mr Dodd was initially employed on a probationary basis

should have been included in the broadcast given the item's overall thrust;

* The use of the phrase "smoothed over" left the impression that the

complaint was not properly acted on;

* Evidence of the alleged pressure on parents and pupils was inadequate.

In its reply to the Authority, TVNZ said that it had little further information to add

other than noting that Mr Mucklejohn's motives were irrelevant as the matter was not

raised in the original complaint. It enclosed a letter from Mr Dodd to Mr Mucklejohn

(dated 11 January 1993) in which Mr Dodd wrote that he had been advised by Mr

Taylor to keep the precise details of the incident secret. TVNZ maintained:

We repeat that Mr Taylor advised the reporter that he (Mr Dodd) had told him

that he was on a list that excluded him from teaching in England. We asked

(quite properly, we believe) why Mr Taylor continued to employ Mr Dodd in

those circumstances. Mr Taylor declined to be interviewed on camera.

When first considering the complaint, the Authority decided it needed some specific

information and, accordingly, it asked TVNZ:

(a) What specifically did Mr Taylor acknowledge to TVNZ that he knew

about the incident involving Mr Dodd at Whitgift – or incidents which

could reflect on his suitability as a teacher – before employing him?

(b) How did Kings old boys and Mr Taylor apply pressure on parents so that

they would not talk to 60 Minutes?

It also sought a copy of a letter written by Mr Taylor to parents and which TVNZ

said was evidence of the pressure applied to parents.

In response to the Authority's first question, TVNZ pointed to a statement received

from Mr Taylor in which he said that:

Mr Dodd disclosed that he had left his teaching position in the United Kingdom

as a result of an alleged incident which had been reported to the UK Department

of Education and Science.

TVNZ continued:

In his interview with 60 Minutes (we remind you this was not an on-camera

interview) Mr Taylor spoke highly of Mr Dodd's work at his school and said

that he (Mr Dodd) had put behind him something he regrets. Mr Taylor told

our reporter that Mr Dodd had told him everything, the fact that he had had an

incident which caused him to leave England, and that under the pressure of a lot

of circumstances of the moment he had committed an indiscretion.

Mr Taylor told our reporter "I know what the indiscretion was and so do you".

Mr Taylor further acknowledged the incident had a sexual connotation.

In reply to another question during that interview, Mr Taylor also said he knew

that Mr Dodd was on List 99 when he came to Kings, but that was

"confidential". Mr Taylor later amended this statement in his letter to the [60

Minutes] director (Mr Adams) dated 22 June.

TVNZ enclosed a copy of a letter dated 22 June circulated to all parents in which the

proposed programme was described as an invasion of privacy and that, said TVNZ,

amounted to pressure.

In his final comment, the complainants' barrister made three points:

1) As the comment in Mr Dodd's letter to Mr Mucklejohn which TVNZ relied on

for the comment that it seemed Mr Taylor swore Mr Dodd to secrecy was

written nearly five years after the interview, and as it was written with the

intention of not disclosing the details to Mr Mucklejohn:

It was hardly a sufficient basis on which to make the damaging assertions

referred to.

The complainant's barrister criticised TVNZ for not making available a

transcript of the interview between Mr Taylor and the reporter from 60 Minutes.

2) As for what Mr Dodd disclosed to Mr Taylor, the letter recorded:

There is no dispute that Dodd disclosed to Mr Taylor that he had left his

teaching position as a result of an alleged incident. The key issue is that

Dodd denied that the incident involved any impropriety. In the

circumstances, to state that Mr Taylor "knew Dodd had attacked a child"

could not be justified.

Further, the verbatim extract from the interview was equivocal and the absence

of a full transcript did not allow the Authority the opportunity to assess the

remarks in context.

3) With regard to the claim that pressure was applied to parents, the barrister

pointed out that the letter referred to was not sent to parents until Friday 24

June – two days before the broadcast. He described a researcher's note supplied by

TVNZ purporting to record the pressure applied "as evidentially worthless".

He supplied a statement from a student at Lincoln College who TVNZ had sought

to interview and who reported that, contrary to TVNZ's researcher's impression,

he had not been under pressure from Mr Taylor or anyone else not to

participate.

As one of the central issues raised by the complaint was Mr Taylor's knowledge of

the "incident" involving Mr Dodd at Whitgift and as TVNZ maintained that the item's

commentary on the event was justified by Mr Taylor's comments in the interview

with TVNZ's reporter, after some correspondence detailed in the Appendix the

Authority requested and obtained from TVNZ a transcript of the audio tape of part of

the discussion between the reporter and Mr Taylor.

The transcript was supplied on the basis that its availability was not to be considered

a precedent when the Authority dealt with complaints involving matters of journalism

and that it would not be quoted verbatim in the decision. The verbatim quotations in

the decision therefore come from extracts of the transcript quoted by TVNZ in its

correspondence with the Authority.

After reading the transcript, the complainants' barrister argued that it did not justify

the comments in the item that Mr Taylor swore Mr Dodd to secrecy or that Mr

Taylor had known at the time of Mr Dodd's appointment that he had attacked a child.

The transcript revealed, he continued, that at the time of Mr Dodd's appointment, Mr

Taylor was aware of Mr Dodd's previous employment in New Zealand and that he

had an excellent reference from the headmaster of an English public school. It also

disclosed that strict conditions were imposed on Mr Dodd and that Mr Taylor,

contrary to TVNZ's assertions, was not aware that the interview was being recorded.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority considered that there were two principal issues to resolve in

determining the complaint. The first was the extent of Mr Taylor's knowledge about

Mr Dodd's past misbehaviour at the time of his (Mr Dodd's) appointment to Kings

College and the second was to assess the overall tone of the item. The second issue is

discussed after the specific aspects of the complaint have been considered.

1 The extent of Mr Taylor's knowledge

The Authority's task is to consider complaints about material which is broadcast and

in assessing both the specific aspects and the overall tenor, it watched carefully the

item complained about on a number of occasions. In the item's introduction, it was

reported that it was made known to a "select few" at Kings at the time of Mr Dodd's

appointment as a history teacher, that he had been accused of indecently assaulting

one of his pupils in England. Further, the introduction recorded that his name was

later placed on a secret list and he was banned from teaching anywhere in the United

Kingdom.

The reporter repeated that comment about Mr Taylor's (the headmaster) knowledge

at the time of Mr Dodd's appointment when she said:

The headmaster knew Dodd had indecently assaulted the little boy back in

England.

On the other hand, the item said that Mr Dodd, after teaching at Whitgift school from

1982 until he left suddenly in 1988, had told his friend (Mr Mucklejohn):

He said that he had hit a child and could not remember the actual action as he'd

been in such a temper at the time.

Mr Dodd, the item continued, had also told Mr Mucklejohn that he had been

dismissed because it was the second time that it had occurred. However, it was also

reported that Mr Dodd had propositioned a 16 year old pupil in his earlier career as a

teacher and that this had come to Mr Mucklejohn's attention. Nevertheless, Mr

Mucklejohn had not been convinced of the molestation charges until recently when he

was approached by the UK Department of Education as Mr Dodd was attempting to

be taken off the list of banned teachers. He had been put on the list of banned teachers

(List 99) Mr Mucklejohn said because:

... he had grabbed and twisted the genitals of a ten year-old boy whilst teaching

at Whitgift School.

The item also reported that while the headmaster of Whitgift had reported Mr Dodd

to the British authorities, he had also given him a glowing reference.

Having provided this background information, the item reported when referring to Mr

Dodd's appointment to Kings College:

King's headmaster, John Taylor, ... knew Dodd had attacked a child and was

undergoing a serious investigation back in Britain but Taylor told us that he

decided to give Dodd a second chance. ... it seems he swore Dodd to secrecy.

It's in Paul Dodd's own letters. He wrote, I was advised by John Taylor to

keep the precise details of the incident as secret as possible. Taylor told 60

Minutes he decided only a handful of senior staff needed to know about Dodd's

past. He didn't think it was necessary to tell the parents. Do the parents have a

right to know that there is a Paul Dodd teaching their kids school?

During the broadcast, the reporter later gave the questions which 60 Minutes had

wanted to put to Mr Taylor:

We wanted to ask headmaster John Taylor why he hired Dodd and continued to

employ him knowing he was on List 99, knowing he had indecently assaulted a

school boy. We wanted to know why he told Dodd to keep his background a

secret and why he didn't think it was appropriate to advise parents. And finally

we wanted to know if Dodd had ever stepped out of line with any of the boys at

Kings. John Taylor declined to be interviewed but in a statement he said his

decision to hire Paul Dodd was carefully considered. He said he told enough

senior staff about Dodd's circumstances to ensure he was closely monitored and

that Dodd had proved an outstanding teacher here at Kings. But when we asked

him specifically about Dodd's behaviour around the boys, Mr Taylor admitted

there had been a complaint after we told him that that's what our investigations

had uncovered. Over the months we spoke with many parents and students.

Several said they were pressured by Kings old boys, even the headmaster

himself and warned off any contact with us.

The above extracts, in the Authority's opinion, contained the tenor of the item's

references when Kings College and its headmaster, Mr John Taylor, were accused of

hiring a teacher who had a history of sexual indiscretions with male school pupils of

which Mr Taylor was to some degree aware. The Authority would observe that this

explanation could be expanded to note that even if Mr Taylor was not aware of the

full details of the incident at Whitgift at the time of Mr Dodd's appointment, the

material provided to the Authority indicated that Mr Taylor acknowledged that later

he had been told everything but nevertheless had continued to employ him.

As was apparent in the above extracts and in some of the other comments, the

programme was highly critical of Kings and its headmaster for employing Mr Dodd

because of his known sexual interest in school boys.

As the complainants pointed out, the accusations contained in the item questioned the

school's and the headmaster's judgment and raised broadcasting standards issues of

accuracy, fairness and balance.

In justifying the broadcast initially, TVNZ quoted from extracts from the transcript of

a tape recording of part of the discussion between its reporter and Mr Taylor. The

complainants' barrister maintained to the Authority that the use of selected portions –

by omitting context – was self-serving.

In dealing with the issue of what Mr Taylor knew when he appointed Mr Dodd, the

Authority noted that Mr Taylor acknowledged in a letter to parents after 60 Minutes

began its enquires that he had known, when he appointed Mr Dodd, that he had been

reported to the authorities "as a result of an alleged incident". In the complaint, he

denied that he knew that the incident involved an attack on a child. Referring to Mr

Taylor, the barrister's letter of compliant explained:

He knew there had been an allegation but Dodd had denied impropriety and the

consequential investigation had not been completed;

|
When asked by the Authority, TVNZ said the interview contained the following

material:

In his interview with 60 Minutes (we remind you this was not an on-camera

interview) Mr Taylor spoke highly of Mr Dodd's work at his school and said

that he (Mr Dodd) had put behind him something he regrets. Mr Taylor told our

reporter that Mr Dodd had told him everything, the fact that he had had an

incident which caused him to leave England, and that under the pressure of a lot

of circumstances of the moment he had committed an indiscretion.

Mr Taylor told our reporter "I know what the indiscretion was and so do you".

Mr Taylor further acknowledged the incident had a sexual connotation.

In reply to another question during that interview, Mr Taylor also said he knew

that Mr Dodd was on List 99 when he came to Kings but that it was

"confidential". Mr Taylor later amended this statement in his letter to the

director of 60 Minutes (Mr Adams) dated 22 June.

In response, Mr Taylor's barrister recorded:

There is no dispute that Dodd disclosed to Mr Taylor that he had left his

teaching position as a result of an alleged incident. The key issue is that Dodd

denied that the incident involved any impropriety. In the circumstances, to state

that Mr Taylor "knew Dodd had attacked a child" could not be justified.

Having read the transcript, the Authority concluded that Mr Taylor knew – before

appointing Mr Dodd – that Mr Dodd had left teaching in England because of an

"indiscretion" with a pupil having sexual connotations and which was acknowledged

by Mr Dodd as the reason for his dismissal. The complaint argued that it was

incorrect to refer to an "attack". The Authority acknowledged that while that word

can include overtones of overwhelming physical aggression, it does not necessarily

imply that. Taken with the use in the item of the legal term "indecent assault" and the

power imbalance of an adult teacher on the one hand and a child or pupil on the other,

the Authority decided that as an "assault" involves some degree of physical

aggression, the item was not in breach of the standards in using the word "attack".

In other words, since any indecent touching of a child by a teacher or any other adult

can be seen as an attack, the Authority considered that it was not inaccurate for the

word "attack" to be used as a synonym for an "indecent assault.

Was the item fair to Mr Taylor, the Authority then asked, when it suggested that

Kings College decided to give a person – who had acknowledged committing an

"indiscretion" involving sexual connotations – a second chance?

In answering the question, the Authority acknowledged that the criticisms contained in

the programme were extremely serious and, accordingly, not ones which should be

made without a thorough examination of the accuracy of the relevant facts. They were

criticisms which not only reflected devastatingly on Mr Dodd but also adversely on

Kings College and Mr Taylor.

In reaching its decision on this question, the Authority noted Mr Taylor's observation

to TVNZ, recorded in the transcript, that Mr Dodd deserved a second chance, albeit

under close supervision.

The Authority accepted that Mr Taylor might well have been unaware of the precise

details of the indecent assault at the time of Mr Dodd's appointment. Indeed, the

Authority was not aware of the time at which Kings and Mr Taylor were fully

informed of the alleged details of the assault as given by Mr Mucklejohn during the

item. However, in view of either Mr Mucklejohn's activities or enquiries from the

UK Department of Education it has no doubt that they were aware – or at least had

the opportunity to learn – sometime before the broadcast in June 1994 of the reasons

for Mr Dodd's placement on List 99.

In view of Mr Taylor's acknowledgment of being aware of the essence of the reason

for Mr Dodd's exclusion from teaching in the United Kingdom at the time of Mr

Dodd's appointment (and despite any lack of specific knowledge as to the details of

the incident and despite the undisputed fact that Mr Dodd was not on List 99 at that

time), the Authority concluded that because the item reported Mr Dodd's glowing

reference from Whitgift, it did not breach either the standard G1 requirement for

accuracy or the standard G4 requirement for fairness when it also reported that Mr

Taylor gave Mr Dodd a second chance.

Having reached a conclusion on the central matter, the Authority then proceeded to

deal with the other aspects of the complaint.

2 Swearing Mr Dodd to secrecy

The reporter commented:

But John Taylor was prepared to take a chance on Dodd and it seems he swore

Dodd to secrecy. It's in Paul Dodd's own letters. He wrote, I was advised by

John Taylor to keep the precise details of the incident as secret as possible.

Mr Taylor "categorically" denied demanding secrecy. TVNZ supplied the Authority

with a copy of the letter Mr Dodd wrote to Mr Mucklejohn in which he said he was

advised by Mr Taylor "to keep the precise details" as secret as possible. As the

complainants' barrister pointed out, the letter was written in 1993 when Mr Dodd

could well have made up the comment as a ruse to stop Mr Mucklejohn prying. The

transcript recorded that Mr Taylor was asked whether he had advised Mr Dodd to

keep the reasons for leaving England secret. Mr Taylor by the use of a colloquial

phrase indicated that he did not expect Mr Dodd to let the matter be widely known.

The Authority was of the view that the transcript in itself did not justify the

unqualified use of the sworn to secrecy phrase. However, through the use of "it

seems", TVNZ accepted the possibility of Mr Dodd's erroneous memory or his

deliberately lying to a colleague.

The Authority agreed with TVNZ on this point. However, it noted the use of "it

seems" was confined to the first occasion when the programme reported Mr Taylor's

apparent advice. A later reference to the advice was made without qualification and so

accepted that the advice had in fact been given. Taking into account Mr Taylor's

ambiguous answer when questioned on the point by TVNZ's reporter (and the answer

is recorded as a written note made after the tape recorder was turned off), and the

circumstances in which Mr Dodd used the secrecy phrase when he wrote to Mr

Mucklejohn, the Authority decided that TVNZ's second reference to the advice -

without qualification at that time - involved a breach of the dealing fairly requirement

in standard G4.

3 Mr Taylor's enquiries prior to the appointment of Mr Dodd at Kings College

In addition to what Kings and Mr Taylor were alleged to have known about Mr Dodd

at the time of his appointment, the complaint maintained that the item had been unfair

and inaccurate in alleging first that Mr Dodd was on List 99 at the time of his

appointment, secondly that it had been misleading in failing to refer to Mr Taylor's

inquiries, and thirdly, that it had been unfair and misleading by omitting any reference

to Mr Dodd's initial probationary appointment.

The first aspect was not upheld as the item's introduction stated explicitly that Mr

Dodd was not placed on the secret list until after his appointment at Kings.

With regard to Mr Taylor's enquiries, the Authority agreed with TVNZ that Mr

Dodd's appointment at a private New Zealand school for one term did not merit an

explicit mention. As Whitgift School was responsible for having Mr Dodd placed on

List 99, the Authority decided that an omission of any reference to it would have

jeopardised the standards. While the item did not refer to Mr Taylor's enquiries at

Whitgift, it was reported that the school "gave Dodd a glowing reference". The

transcript noted that Mr Taylor explained that the quality of the reference was a

reason for giving Mr Dodd a "second chance". In view of the fact that the quality of

the reference was referred to during the broadcast, the Authority was of the opinion

that the absence of any reference to the specific enquiries did not contravene the

standards.

As for the lack of direct comment about Mr Dodd's probationary appointment, the

Authority decided that the reference to the "handful of senior staff" who were told

about Mr Dodd's past – as it was known to Mr Taylor at the time – was, in its

opinion, sufficient.

4 Smoothing over the complaint about Mr Dodd

The complainants maintained that the following comment was false and unfair as it

suggested that Mr Taylor had failed to act. The reporter stated:

In 1992 while Dodd was house master here at Major house a young boy

reported that Dodd had been staring at him in the showers. His parents

complained to the headmaster and Paul Dodd. The incident was smoothed over

but the father now says Taylor never revealed Dodd's troubled past.

The complainants gave the "smoothed over" phrase the meaning which the Oxford

Dictionary provides for "smooth-talk" or "smooth-tongue" – ie bland and insincere.

However, that was not the meaning the Authority believed was implied. Smoothing

over can also mean dealing with a matter adequately but in a low-key way. That

interpretation, the Authority decided, was more applicable and that part of the

complaint was not upheld.

5 The application of pressure on parents and students

The reporter observed:

Over the months we spoke with many parents and students. Several said they

were pressured by Kings old boys, even the headmaster himself and warned off

any contact with us.

As evidence to justify the remark, TVNZ referred to the comments received from

people approached and pointed particularly to a letter sent by Mr Taylor to parents

on 23 June. He mentioned TVNZ's interest in Mr Dodd and included the following

comment:

... the Board and I have expressed to TVNZ in the strongest possible terms our

concern that the programme is an invasion of privacy and that Mr Dodd's

position is not a proper subject for televised enquires.

TVNZ also sent the Authority an undated 60 Minutes' researcher's note which

referred to the responses she had received from parents and ex-pupils - one of whom

had said that he had been approached by Mr Taylor on the issue.

Besides noting the complainants' barrister's points, first, that it would be difficult to

assess the response to Mr Taylor's letter as it was sent only two days before the

broadcast, and secondly, the questionable value of the undated researcher's statement,

the Authority did not accept that Mr Taylor's advice to parents – which was

understandable in the circumstances – amounted to pressure.

Accordingly, the Authority decided that this aspect of the item was inaccurate and

unfair to Mr Taylor.

6 Recording part of the interview with Mr Taylor

As this aspect of the complaint does not raise a matter of broadcasting standards, the

Authority does not have the jurisdiction to determine the exact interaction between

Mr Taylor and the reporter from 60 Minutes with regard to the former's knowledge

about the use of the tape recorder.

However, having read the transcript the Authority acknowledges the point raised by

the complainants' barrister when he argued, contrary to TVNZ's assertions to the

Authority, that it showed that Mr Taylor "was in fact unaware that the interview was

being recorded".

7 The item overall

The complainants argued that both the cumulative specific matters and general tone of

the item resulted in a programme which lacked balance and reflected unfairly on Mr

Taylor and Kings College.

In response, TVNZ maintained that a tricky subject had been handled in a professional

manner. Declining to uphold the complaint, it wrote:

All relevant viewpoints were reflected either as interview extracts from those

prepared to appear on camera, or as quotations from those (including Mr

Taylor) who preferred to respond in writing.

While the committee was sorry that your clients were dismayed by the

programme, it did not believe that its broadcast contravened any of the Codes of

Broadcasting Practice.

Giving full weight to the two aspects of the complaint upheld and although

understanding the complainants' concerns, the Authority concluded that as the item

was based for the most part on an understandable interpretation of the information

available to TVNZ, the requirement for balance was not transgressed.

In addition, the core issue for the Authority was the item's claim that Mr Taylor

knew at the time of Mr Dodd's appointment of the indiscretion which resulted in Mr

Dodd being under investigation for unacceptable sexual behaviour with pupils. The

Authority did not uphold the complaint that this aspect of the item was inaccurate.

Accordingly, the Authority decided that the item overall did not breach the

requirement for balance, fairness and accuracy.

For the reasons given above, the Authority declines to uphold several aspects of

the complaint, including the two central issues about the extent of Mr Taylor's

knowledge and the overall tone of the item.

It upholds the aspects of the complaint that the item broadcast by Television

New Zealand Ltd on 60 Minutes on 26 June breached standards G1 and G4 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, first, when it maintained that

Kings College and its headmaster, Mr Taylor, applied pressure to parents and

pupils not to co-operate with 60 Minutes and, secondly, when it reported that Mr

Taylor had told Mr Dodd to keep his background secret.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. On the basis that the item was neither inaccurate nor unfair

on what was regarded as the central issues, the Authority declined to do so.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
6 April 1995

Appendix

King's College's and its Headmaster's Complaints to Television New Zealand

Limited - 30 June 1994

Through their barrister (R H Hansen), Auckland's Kings College and its headmaster,

Mr John Taylor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on 60

Minutes broadcast between 7.30 - 8.30pm on Sunday 26 June.

Describing the item as "inaccurate, unfair and/or defamatory", the complaints listed six

specific matters.

1) Mr Taylor categorically denied that, when employing Mr Dodd, he had sworn

Mr Dodd to secrecy or had told Mr Dodd to keep his background secret.

2) The item failed to explain fairly the circumstances in which Mr Dodd was

employed. Although he knew of an allegation of impropriety, Mr Taylor was

not aware that Mr Dodd had attacked a child. As TVNZ had been advised, Mr

Dodd was not on the list of teachers prohibited from teaching in the UK at the

time of his employment at Kings. Moreover, the item did not refer to Mr

Taylor's enquiries before employing Mr Dodd and there was no reference to

the fact that Mr Dodd was employed initially on a probationary basis. The

complaints summarised these points:

The omission of these matters, all of which were known to the

programme's producer, leave the quite unjustified impression that Mr

Taylor employed Dodd without proper consultation and without

taking proper steps to protect the interests of his pupils. That

innuendo is both false and damaging to Mr Taylor's professional

reputation.

3) The item suggested that Mr Taylor, by smoothing over an incident involving

Mr Dodd, failed to act on a complaint.

4) Mr Taylor denied the suggestion in the item that he pressured parents or

students not to talk to 60 Minutes.

5) In summary of the above points, the complaints recorded:

Cumulatively, these matters and the general content and tone of the

programme resulted in a lack of balance which reflected unfairly and

adversely on Mr Taylor and Kings College.

6) The "unprofessional" methods used to collect information was the final matter

raised in the complaints. It was alleged that part of the discussion between Mr

Taylor and TVNZ's reporter (Ms Genevieve Westcott) had been taped

without his knowledge or consent. Former pupils had advised that 60 Minutes

applied unreasonable pressure and had hinted at the availability of financial or

other inducements.

The complaint concluded:

In respect of the matters referred to in paragraphs 1-4 above, I request on Mr

Taylor's behalf a retraction in terms to be agreed to be published at the earliest

practicable opportunity. A retraction that had the effect of correcting the false

and misleading statements and innuendos and the payment of Mr Taylor's

costs would avoid the need for legal proceedings.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaints - 3 August 1994

TVNZ advised the complainants' barrister that the complaints had been assessed

under standards G1, G4 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ began:

At the outset [TVNZ's] Complaints Committee agreed that the topic of the

programme was worthwhile. It raised a serious matter which was in the

public's interest. The circumstances surrounding the employment of a history

teacher in New Zealand despite an unsavoury incident which led to his being

banned from teaching anywhere in the United Kingdom is clearly a worthy

topic for media investigation - one the viewing public would expect its

reporters to examine.

The Committee further noted that the main facts in this programme appear to

go unchallenged in your complaint. Rather you concentrate on selected parts

of the programme and imply that these parts were either inaccurate or unfair to

your client, Mr Taylor.

TVNZ then dealt with six specific points made in the complaints.

1) Referring to what Mr Dodd has said in his letter to Mr Mucklejohn, TVNZ

said that the item recorded "it seemed" that Mr Taylor swore Mr Dodd to

secrecy. Further, in his conversation with the reporter, Mr Taylor "in essence

acknowledged" that Mr Dodd was expected to keep quiet about his

background. The issue had also been raised and the written questions put to

Mr Taylor by 60 Minutes and his response had been referred to in the item.

2) TVNZ said it had been advised by Mr Dodd that he had told the Kings College

authorities everything and Mr Taylor had advised the reporter that he knew of

Mr Dodd's indiscretion.

The item had not stated that Mr Dodd was on the list at the time of his

appointment. It had said that it wanted to question Mr Taylor "why he

continued to employ" Mr Dodd when later advised that he was on the list.

TVNZ did not consider Mr Dodd's relieving position in New Zealand prior to

his appointment at Kings College was relevant and it had referred to the

Whitgift headmaster both reporting Mr Dodd to the British authorities while

giving him a glowing reference to help him get a job in New Zealand.

The item had not referred specifically to Mr Dodd's initial probationary

appointment, TVNZ acknowledged, but had contained such an implication by

referring to the fact that he was to be monitored by senior staff initially.

TVNZ concluded on these points:

The committee noted the emphasis you place on the programme not

giving weight to the amount of consultation Mr Taylor undertook

before employing Mr Dodd. Whatever the consultation, the fact

remains that Mr Taylor apparently employed Mr Dodd knowing of his

background.

3) The item had not suggested that Mr Taylor had failed to act on the complaint

and, TVNZ observed, the statement that Mr Taylor did not reveal Mr Dodd's

troubled past to the student's father involved, was not challenged.

4) Citing information disclosed during its enquiries and a letter sent to parents by

Mr Taylor, TVNZ maintained that Mr Taylor and some old boys had actively

discouraged parents from speaking to 60 Minutes.

6) TVNZ denied that the production team was "unprofessional". Mr Taylor

would have been aware that the tape recorder was turned on because the

recorder was in front of him and it was turned off at his request. There were

no offers of financial inducements.

TVNZ denied that the standards were breached, commenting:

The Committee understands that the subject matter of the programme

must be painful to Mr Taylor. Nevertheless, it is clear that "60

Minutes" went to a great deal of effort and undertook a great deal of

research in acquiring the facts for this story which, we repeat, was

clearly a matter of public interest. The team travelled around the world

to verify facts and to interview key people.

The Complainants' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 2

September 1994

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, the complainants' barrister referred the complaint to

the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

By way of background information, the letter recorded that Mr Dodd left his position

at Whitgift, an English public school, as a result of an alleged indecent assault on a

pupil there. No criminal charges eventuated but subsequently, after his employment

at Kings College, his name was entered on a list - known as List 99 - which banned

him from teaching in the United Kingdom. He had taught at a small private school in

New Zealand for one term before taking up a position at Kings.

TVNZ, the letter continued, was approached by a former colleague of Mr Dodd's, Mr

Ian Mucklejohn, and the 60 Minutes reporter interviewed Mr Taylor in his office. The

barrister added:

One of Mr Taylor's complaints is that the first part of the interview was tape

recorded without his knowledge. Recording did not cease until he realised that

the tape recorder was on. Thereafter 60 Minutes was asked to put any

questions in writing and these were responded to by way of written statement.

The letter then went through the six points noted above.

1) It was submitted that the use of the words "it seems" did not detract from the

thrust of the observation. Noting that he had not seen a copy of the letter

TVNZ referred to, the barrister asked that a copy be made available to him as

well as a copy of the transcript of the tape recording between the reporter and

Mr Taylor.

2) Declining to comment further on the knowledge TVNZ said Mr Taylor

accepted in the interview until he had seen a transcript, the barrister maintained

that the item did not report, as 60 Minutes had been advised by Mr Taylor,

that Mr Dodd was not placed on List 99 until after his appointment at Kings

College.

The failure to refer to the extent of Mr Taylor's enquiries before employing

Mr Dodd, the letter added, "left a quite misleading impression as to the

circumstances" in which he was employed. Similarly, fairness required an

explicit account of the terms of Mr Dodd's employment.

3) To say that the incident at Kings College was "smoothed over", the letter

continued left the impression that it had not been acted on fairly.

4) As TVNZ had not disclosed what it accepted as evidence of pressure, the

letter maintained that this aspect of the complaint had not been dealt with

adequately.

5) & 6) Further comments and the supply of supporting evidence on these points

awaited the Authority's approach and requirements following its

considerations of the submissions.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 29 September 1994

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the referral.

TVNZ began by describing the programme:

The item revealed that a teacher at Kings College in Auckland, Mr Paul Dodd,

had been accused earlier in his career of indecently assaulting one of his pupils

at Whitgift School in the United Kingdom, and that he had been employed at

the college despite the headmaster being aware of the matter.

The reference to Mr Mucklejohn's role, TVNZ argued, was not part of the original

complaint and should not form part of the Authority's review. Nevertheless, it added:

However, we do point out that we have copies of correspondence showing

that Mr Mucklejohn went to extreme lengths to alert authorities in both the

United Kingdom and New Zealand to the potential problems surrounding Mr

Dodd's appointment. It was his concern for the safety of children and his

frustration at the inaction of those authorities (a main point of the story)

which lead him to go public.

Referring back to its letter of 3 August to the complainants' barrister as being its main

response to the complaint, TVNZ added a few points by way of clarification.

1) With regard to the first point, TVNZ wrote:

Mr Hansen questions the phrase "it seems" ... [w]e have in our

possession the letter written by Mr Dodd to Mr Mucklejohn, dated 11

January 1993, confirming that Mr Taylor had advised that he (Dodd)

"keep the precise details of the incident as secret as possible".

2) TVNZ said that it understood that Mr Dodd "grasped and twisted a ten year

old boy's genitals" while at Whitgift and that was why the word "attack" was

used.

TVNZ repeated that Mr Taylor advised the reporter that Mr Dodd had told

him that he (Mr Dodd) was on the list that excluded him from teaching in the

United Kingdom.

3) TVNZ did not accept that the phrase "smoothed over" suggested that the

matter was not properly dealt with.

6) As for the point about the use of the tape recorder, TVNZ wrote:

There is clearly a conflict between the reporter and the interviewee over

the agreement to tape the proceedings. It should be emphasised that

"60 Minutes" was with Mr Taylor at his invitation, which was in

response to a request by "60 Minutes" to hear his side of the story. In

these circumstances, and in the absence of cameras, we have no reason

to disbelieve our reporter's assertion that Mr Taylor was aware that a

sound tape was running.

The Complainants' Final Comment - 13 October 1994

The complainants' barrister responded under the six headings noted above.

1) The information supplied by TVNZ, he said, did not justify the programme's

claim that Mr Taylor "swore Dodd to secrecy".

Although TVNZ maintained that Mr Taylor had acknowledged the situation in

his meeting with the 60 Minutes reporter, the barrister pointed out TVNZ

refused to make a copy of the tape or transcript available. He enclosed a copy

of TVNZ's letter reporting its decision and a copy of his reply in which he said

that he had made the following points:

(a) There is no privilege attaching to a reporter's notebook or its

equivalent which could make the tape and transcript privileged from

production.

(b) The Authority has the power under section 12 of the Broadcasting

Act to require the production of the tape and transcript.

(c) If TVNZ refuses to make the tape available, the Authority must

draw an inference adverse to TVNZ, as a record of the interview

may provide the means of resolving the differences which are a key

aspect of the complaint.

2) Emphasising that what Mr Taylor knew was the point in issue, the

complainants' barrister said as TVNZ relied on the interview, the evidential

point was important.

3) No further comment.

4) As TVNZ advanced no evidence that parents or students were pressured, the

complainants' barrister argued that either the evidence should be produced or an

adverse inference be drawn from its absence.

5) No further comment.

6) The tape itself, the barrister said, would resolve the issue of whether Mr Taylor

knew he was being recorded.

Further Correspondence

As noted in the complainants' final comment, a copy of TVNZ's letter of 27

September was attached in which it declined to make available either the tape or the

transcript of the interview with Mr Taylor.

In that letter, TVNZ stated:

The advice we have received is that the tape (and its transcript) is a modern

equivalent of a reporter's notebook. Without a Court Order we are not prepared

to hand over copies of such material. The Broadcasting Act 1989 provides in

Section 10(2) that in considering every complaint referred to it, the Authority

shall provide for as little formality and technicality as is permitted by the

requirements of the Act, a proper consideration of the complaint and the

principles of natural justice. The Authority does not have the power to order

disclosure of a reporter's notebook or indeed a tape of any interview. If a

complainant disputes the facts put forward by the broadcaster he or she should

provide the evidence to support his or her case. A complainant (and the

broadcaster) have to accept that the Authority may in these circumstances be

unable to reach a decision on a particular aspect of a complaint.

In a letter to the Authority dated 13 October 1994, written in reply to TVNZ, the

complainants' barrister made the points noted in section 1 of his final comment.

TVNZ responded (31 October 1994) to the complainants' barrister's letter of 13

October and made three points:

1) It enclosed a copy of a letter from Mr Dodd to Mr Mucklejohn which provided

the basis for the comment "it seems he [Mr Taylor] swore Dodd to secrecy".

When Mr Taylor was asked about this point by the 60 Minutes reporter, TVNZ

said that Mr Taylor, in essence, acknowledged that Mr Dodd was expected to

keep quiet about his background.

TVNZ again declined to disclose the tape recording - or a transcript of it - of the

exchange between Mr Taylor and the reporter.

2) TVNZ repeated that the programme neither stated nor implied that Mr Dodd

was prohibited from teaching at the time he was hired at Kings.

3) TVNZ maintained that Kings old boys and Mr Taylor applied pressure on

parents and pupils not to speak to 60 Minutes. It added:

It is our view that the broadcast item raised important issues of legitimate

public concern. The 60 Minutes research was thorough and exhaustive.

Our reporter and camera team travelled to the United Kingdom to carry

out interviews and check the veracity of the substantive allegations. The

teacher, Mr Dodd, was given the opportunity both in New Zealand and in

England, to respond on camera. He declined.

TVNZ concluded:

We emphasise that throughout this complaint procedure, Mr Hansen has not

challenged the main facts and the thrust of the item as a whole. His focus is on

matters of detail where he feels 60 Minutes has been either inaccurate or unfair.

We have responded to those concerns in detail.

The Authority's Request for Information - 4 November 1994

After its first deliberation of the complaints, the Authority wrote to TVNZ to request

the following information:

(a) What specifically did Mr Taylor acknowledge to TVNZ that he knew

about the incident involving Mr Dodd at Whitgift - or incidents which

could reflect on his suitability as a teacher - before employing him?

(b) How did Kings Old Boys and Mr Taylor apply pressure on parents so

that they would not talk to 60 Minutes.

It also sought a copy of Mr Taylor's letter which was considered by TVNZ as

evidence of the pressure applied to parents and pupils not to co-operate with TVNZ.

TVNZ's Reply to the Authority - 14 November 1994

There were two parts to TVNZ's reply to the first question. First, it referred to the

written statement received from Mr Taylor before the broadcast of the item in which

he acknowledged that Mr Dodd had disclosed:

"that he had left his teaching position in the United Kingdom as a result of an

alleged incident which had been reported to the UK Department of Education

and Science."

Secondly,

In his interview with 60 Minutes (we remind you this was not an on-camera

interview) Mr Taylor spoke highly of Mr Dodd's work at his school and said

that he (Mr Dodd) had put behind him something he regrets. Mr Taylor told

our reporter that Mr Dodd had told him everything, the fact that he had had an

incident which caused him to leave England, and that under the pressure of a lot

of circumstances of the moment he had committed an indiscretion.

Mr Taylor told our reporter "I know what the indiscretion was and so do you".

Mr Taylor further acknowledged the incident had a sexual connotation.

In reply to another question during that interview, Mr Taylor also said he knew

that Mr Dodd was on List 99 when he came to Kings, but that was

"confidential". Mr Taylor later amended this statement in his letter to the [60

Minutes] director (Mr Adams) dated 22 June.

As for the second question, TVNZ enclosed the letter dated 23 June from Mr Taylor

to parents and pupils at Kings College in which the forthcoming programme was

described "as an invasion of privacy" and that Mr Dodd's position was "not a proper

subject for a televised enquiry".

That amounted, TVNZ argued, to pressure on parents not to participate. In addition,

a report from a 60 Minutes researcher was enclosed relating conversations with two

students (whose names were deleted) who said they had been urged not to talk to 60

Minutes.

The Complainants' Comments on TVNZ's reply - 23 November 1994

In view of the material provided to the Authority by TVNZ, the complainants'

barrister (Mr Hansen) made three points in response.

1) The letter from Mr Dodd to Mr Mucklejohn stating that he was told by Mr

Taylor to keep his background secret and which was the basis for the comment,

"It seems [Mr Taylor] swore Dodd to secrecy" was dated 11 January 1993. Mr

Hansen noted, first, that five years had elapsed since Mr Taylor was alleged to

have made the statement to Mr Dodd, and secondly, the letter was plainly

written to justify Mr Dodd's refusal to disclose details to Mr Mucklejohn.

Further, as TVNZ maintained that Mr Taylor had "in essence" confirmed his request

when interviewed, Mr Hansen repeated his criticism of TVNZ for not making

available a copy of the transcript of the interview between 60 Minutes' reporter and

Mr Taylor.

2) Mr Hansen wrote:

There is no dispute that Dodd disclosed to Mr Taylor that he had left his

teaching position as a result of an alleged incident. They key issue is that

Dodd denied that the incident involved any impropriety. In the

circumstances, to state that Mr Taylor "knew Dodd had attacked a child"

could not be justified.

I noted that TVNZ rely (on this occasion) on a verbatim extract from the

interview- p1, letter 14 November 1994. I submit that the remark is

equivocal but maintain my objection to the use of selective and self serving

portions of the transcript without the whole being made available.

Describing that approach as unfair as the remark would be assessed out of context, he

repeated that TVNZ had stated incorrectly on the item that Mr Dodd was on the list

at the time he was employed.

3) Criticism of a programme and warning them off contact with a reporter, Mr

Hansen argued, did not amount to pressuring parents. Further, the letter was

distributed on Friday 24 June, and comments based on the letter could not have

been included in the programme which was broadcast on 26 June.

Describing the researcher's report as evidentially worthless, Mr Hansen attached a

statement from a named student at Lincoln College who was spoken to before and

after the programme by a TVNZ researcher and who, after the broadcast, had

disabused the researcher of her belief that he had been under pressure from anyone

involved with Kings. On the contrary, the student recorded:

Over a period of several months before the 60 Minutes programme on Paul Dodd

was broadcast I came under intense pressure from the 60 Minutes team to be

interviewed for the programme. They offered me perks such as lunch or dinner

and offered to pay my expenses to travel to Auckland and stay in a hotel.

Further Correspondence

Following a discussion of the complaint and acknowledging a direct conflict in the

material advanced by the complainants and TVNZ, on 14 December 1994 the

Authority wrote to the complainant's barrister. It sought an affidavit from Mr Taylor

covering, first, what Mr Taylor knew about the alleged incident involving Mr Dodd at

the time of Mr Dodd's appointment, and secondly, what he had told TVNZ's

reporter on this point at the time of his discussion with her.

In his reply dated 26 January 1995, Mr Hansen (the complainants' barrister) stated

that his clients found unacceptable the Authority's proposal to resolve the conflict.

He wrote:

TVNZ has chosen to rely on what was said in the interview to counter a number

of the complaints. It has referred to extracts from the transcript and its

interpretation of other sections. It has however refused to make available the

best evidence of what was said relying on a spurious claim to privilege.

I cannot see how the Authority can fairly adjudicate on the matter without

access to the entire transcript or how TVNZ could justify refusing a request

from the Authority to make the transcript available. Although it declined to

make a copy of the tape or transcript available to my clients, I note that to date

the Authority has not requested that the transcript be made available to it.

The Authority agreed with this proposal and on 27 January 1995 it wrote to TVNZ

and explicitly requested a copy of the transcript made by TVNZ of the audio tape

(which had since been reused) of the interview between Mr Taylor and TVNZ's

reporter.

In a response dated 8 February, TVNZ pointed to the vital principle it believed to be

at stake and it expressed its belief that the transcript was akin to a reporter's

notebook. It stated that it was prepared to provide a copy of the transcript to the

Authority only on the following basis:

i) That it is for the Authority's eyes only and will not be passed on by the

Authority to any other party.

ii) That it will not be quoted verbatim in the Authority's published decision

on this complaint.

iii) That the Authority will not consider this a precedent when examining

complaints dealing with matters of journalism.

The Authority appreciated the importance placed by TVNZ on the principle noted

above but felt that while it could accept conditions (ii) and (iii), the first condition was

in conflict with the obligation placed on it by the Broadcasting Act 1989 to comply

with the principles of natural justice. It advised TVNZ of its decision on this point in

a letter dated 17 February.

In its reply dated 20 February and on the basis that conditions (ii) and (iii) were

accepted, TVNZ provided the Authority with a copy of transcript. It added the

following explanation:

It is routine for current affairs reporters engaged in investigation work to return

from interviews such as this and to transcribe accurately those parts of the

conversation which could have relevance to the enquiry.

Notwithstanding the observations of the complainant's solicitor, the transcript

was never intended as "evidential" material. It is more in the nature of an

accurate aide-memoire to the editorial process - something the production team

can study and refer to in deciding where next to move in the investigation.

In this context it should be noted that the emphasis is on what Mr Taylor said.

Some questions by the reporter are not transcribed. Also on page 2, in the

parenthesis, the Authority will note that a section is summarised as "but then he

does go on about discipline ... how minority of parents will use this story

against the school."

The Complainants' Comments on the Transcript - 6 March 1995

Having read the transcript, the complainants' barrister accepted that the record,

insofar as it was a transcription of what was taped, was accurate. He did not accept

that the summarised sections were a fair account of the other parts of the interview

but added that those parts did not appear relevant to the complaint.

In his detailed comments, Mr Hansen referred back to the specific grounds of the

complaint which had been raised in his letter of 2 September.

1. The allegation that Mr Taylor "swore Dodd to secrecy" etc

Pointing to the specific exchange as recorded in the transcript, Mr Hansen noted that

TVNZ claimed that the record "in essence" acknowledged that Mr Dodd was expected

to keep quiet about his background. He wrote:

I submit that the notes do not support this claim nor do they meet my client's

fundamental criticisms of the statements in the programme - see in particular my

letter of 2 September 1994 and also paragraph 1 of my letter 29 November 1994.

2(a) Knowledge of an "attack"

Mr Hansen responded:

A reading of the transcript confirms that Mr Taylor knew of an alleged incident,

apparently with sexual connotations, which had resulted in the termination of

Dodd's employment but which had not prevented Dodd's then headmaster from

giving him an "excellent reference" - pp1 & 2 of the transcript. Nothing in what

was said by Mr Taylor supports the statement that he knew Dodd had attacked

a child.

2(b) Previous teaching posts and references

The transcript confirmed that TVNZ was aware of Mr Dodd's previous employment

in New Zealand and had an excellent reference from the headmaster of an English

public school.

2(d) Terms of Employment

The transcript, Mr Hansen stated, confirmed the strict terms under which Mr Dodd

was employed.

6. Taping of interview without consent

Contrary to TVNZ's earlier assertion to the Authority, Mr Hansen said the transcript

showed clearly that Mr Taylor "was in fact unaware that the interview was being

recorded".

Mr Hansen concluded:

I have commented only on issues the resolution of which may be assisted by

reference to the transcript. On all grounds of complaint I request the Authority

to refer also to my letter of 2 September 1994 and subsequent correspondence.