BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The murder of a young woman by a man who had been released on bail after being

charged with the earlier kidnapping and rape of another young woman, was dealt with

on an item broadcast on 20/20. The item, "Free to Kill", was screened on TV3

between 6.30–7.30pm on Sunday 31 August 1997.

Mr Jenkin complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Ltd, that referring

without warning at that time in the evening to graphic, repeated and gratuitous details

of crimes breached the standards. He also claimed that the method of presentation of

the techniques of crime invited imitation.

Explaining that 20/20 was a well-known current affairs programme which did not

require classification, TV3 said the inclusion of some violent and distressing material

was relevant. Nevertheless, care had been taken to exclude unnecessary detail.

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Jenkin referred his complaint to the

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

For the reasons below, a majority of 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). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A man charged with the rape of a young woman was initially remanded in custody

pending his trial. Later, before the trial took place, he was successful in obtaining

bail. While on bail, he murdered a pregnant young woman, for which he was

eventually sentenced to life imprisonment.

The events were canvassed in an item broadcast on 20/20. It included interviews with

the woman whom the man had allegedly raped, and the parents of the murdered

woman. The item also included a discussion with the police officer who investigated

the murder.

Mr Jenkin complained to TV3 that the item breached the standards as it was broadcast

at an inappropriate time. He also complained that although it included descriptions of

the rape and murder, it did not include a warning, and that it explained a technique of

crime which was capable of imitation.

TV3 assessed the complaint under standards G8, G9, V3, V5 and V12 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first two require broadcasters:

G8   To abide by the classification codes and their appropriate time bands as

outlined in the agreed criteria for programme classifications.

G9   To take care in depicting items which explain the technique of crime in a

manner which invites imitation.

The others read:

V3   Warnings should be given, at least at the beginning of a programme, when

a programme contains material which is likely to be disturbing to the

average viewer or which is unexpectedly violent for that programme

genre.

V5   Programmes having rape as a theme must be treated with the utmost care.

Explicit detail and prolonged focus on sexually violent contact must be

avoided. Any programme dealing with rape in any detail must be

preceded by a warning.

V12  The treatment in news, current affairs and documentary programmes of

violent and distressing material calls for careful editorial discernment as to

the extent of graphic detail carried. Should the use of violent and

distressing material be considered relevant and essential to the proper

understanding of the incident or event being portrayed, an appropriate

prior warning must be considered.

Particular care must be taken with graphic material which portrays

especially disturbing images, such as:

- ill-treatment of people or animals

- close-ups of dead and mutilated bodies of people or animals

- views of people in extreme pain or distress, or at the moment of death

- violence directed at children or children in distress

Material shown in late evening may be more graphic than that shown

during general viewing times.

Noting that 20/20 was a well-established current affairs programme which did not

require classification in view of its genre, TV3 explained that the time of broadcast

had been taken into account, care had been exercised in editing, and a warning had

been included in the broadcast. TV3 commented:

The Standards Committee believes the enormity of Hayden Taylor's crime had

to be indicated to the viewer in order to understand the disastrous consequences

of his being given bail after the rape of A W. As part of the normal editorial

process much of what happened to A W was edited out on the grounds of taste.

Similarly, the police officer's description of what was done to N R was edited.

The Committee believes the programme did take care.

Accordingly, and also taking into account what it described as a passing 15 second

shot of military paraphernalia, TV3 did not accept that standard G9 had been

contravened.

Dealing with the other standards together, TV3 maintained that the studio introduction

had made clear that distressing, although relevant, material was contained in the item.

TV3 declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Jenkin maintained that 6.30pm

was an inappropriate time to screen the item. Further, he disputed TV3's claim that it

had taken care and had fulfilled its obligations under the Code of Practice when

dealing with disturbing themes. He described the reconstruction of the crime, and the

display of military paraphernalia, as gratuitous.

In its report to the Authority, TV3 repeated its contention that the issue raised was one

of legitimate public interest, and that care had been taken in the editing. Much

graphic material, it observed, had been edited out. It wrote:

The Standards Committee acknowledges the programme was dealing with

complex and sensitive issues but believes proper care and caution were

exercised in presenting the facts surrounding a tragic and traumatic sequence of

events.

In his final comment, Mr Jenkin did not agree with TV3 that the broadcast was

acceptable in view of the material which had not been broadcast. Reiterating his

concern about the gratuitous depictions of "two sadistic rapes and one murder (burial

alive) of a pregnant young woman", Mr Jenkin argued that TV3, in the pursuit of

ratings, had lost its objectivity.

The Authority shares the concern expressed by Mr Jenkin. While it notes that the

item did not contain any re-enactments of the crimes, reasonably full detail was

provided. These descriptions, it believes, were at least near the limit of what is

acceptable in a current affairs programme broadcast during a G time band.

While questioning the extent of the details which were included on this occasion, the

Authority also notes that children are unlikely to watch a current affairs programme

alone when there are probably programmes on other channels which, in terms of

audience, are more widely targeted.

Turning to the specific standards cited, the Authority does not accept that the

descriptions of the crimes were advanced in a way which invited imitation. Thus, it

does not believe that standard G9 was contravened. As the right to bail of serious

offenders was the item's theme, rather than the rape, it does not consider that standard

V5 was contravened.

The issues raised by standards G8, V3 and V12 are similar on this occasion. Was the

item unsuitable for broadcast at 6.30pm, would it have been acceptable with an

explicit warning as to content, or was it acceptable as broadcast?

The Authority is divided in its ruling on this issue. The majority takes into account

that there were no re-enactments, and that the detail given was necessary to the item,

rather than gratuitous. With these matters in mind, and noting the age of viewers at

whom the programme was targeted, a majority does not accept that these standards

were contravened.

The minority accepts that the detail given was necessary to enable viewers to

comprehend the issues explored. But taking into account that the programme was

broadcast at a time which is a general family viewing hour, the minority believes that

an explicit warning as to content was necessary. It regards the absence of such a

warning on this occasion as a breach of standards G8, V3 and V12.

For the reasons above, a majority of the Authority declines to uphold the

complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
15 December 1997

Appendix

Mr Jenkin's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 2 September 1997

Douglas Jenkin of Wellington complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about an

item entitled "Free to Kill", broadcast by TV3 on 20/20 between 6.30-7.30pm on 31

August 1997.

He maintained that it breached the standard relating to good taste and decency as it

included graphic detail about two rapes and one murder. Further, it breached the

standards as it did not include a warning about the graphic and gratuitous depictions

of the events contained in the item. In view of the gratuitous detail, Mr Jenkin

concluded, it also breached the standard relating to depicting techniques of crime in a

manner which invites imitation.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 30 September 1997

TV3 assessed the complaint under standards G8, G9, V3, V5 and V12 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Dealing first with standard G8, TV3 maintained that news and current affairs could

not be subject to censorship, and 20/20 did not require classification. Nevertheless, in

view of the time that the item was screened, care had been taken with editing and a

warning had been included.

Turning to standard G9, TV3 maintained that care had also been taken to omit

unnecessary details, although it had been necessary to indicate to viewers the

disastrous consequences which had occurred when bail had been granted to the

alleged rapist. The details shown did not invite imitation and thus, TV3 argued, did

not breach standards.

Standards V3, V5 and V12 were considered together and TV3 declined to uphold the

complaint, writing:

In as much as the programme contained violent and distressing material that

material was relevant and essential to the proper understanding of incidents and

issues of legitimate concern and of genuine public interest.

The studio introduction to the item made the subject matter clear to viewers and

complied with the requirements of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

Mr Jenkin's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 5 October 1997

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Jenkin referred the complaint to the

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

Explaining that he found the arguments unconvincing, Mr Jenkin emphasised that the

broadcast, which was not classified, had been shown at 6.30pm.

TV3's Report to the Authority - 20 October 1997

Noting that the issue covered in the item - granting bail to those accused of violent

crimes - was a matter of current public interest, TV3 said that care had been taken in

compiling the item. It had been necessary to present the facts to ensure that viewers

understood the issues, but, it maintained, unnecessarily graphic material had been

omitted.

Mr Jenkin's Final Comment - 27 October 1997

Mr Jenkin said that the broadcast was "an excellent example of the failure of 'self-

regulation' in this medium". It had been screened at 6.30pm without any rating or

indication of its content, which included repeated and graphic depictions of two

sadistic rapes, and the murder of a pregnant young woman. It had also included

gratuitous depictions of some of the methods used to commit the crimes. He

concluded:

I am both a journalist and have studied criminology as part of my degree. It

isn't difficult to present stories such as this tastefully. The detail I object to and

"re-enactments" are becoming common on TV "documentaries". The line

between what is necessary and what boosts ratings is an extremely fine one,

especially when crimes are "re-enacted" and the "depiction of items which

explain the technique of a crime" are shot in a studio and shown over interviews

recorded in a different context.