BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The response by the Wellington Free Ambulance to the fatal collapse of a woman in

Wainuiomata was examined during an item broadcast on 20/20 between 6.30–7.30pm

on 27 July 1997. The item played extracts from a voice tape of the incident made at

the time in the Wellington Free Ambulance control room. While gathering "wallpaper

shots" for the item, TV3 had attended a number of incidents over several evenings

with the permission of the Wellington Free Ambulance management.

J said that he was shown in the 20/20 item while attending one of these unrelated

incidents but, he complained, it was implied that he was involved in the incident

covered by the item. He complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the item

breached broadcasting standards, and to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the item breached his privacy.

On the privacy matter, TV3 advised the Authority that it had given, and complied

with, an undertaking not to identify the patient at the incident J attended. The filming

of that event had occurred in a public place and, TV3 maintained, it was reasonable in

the circumstances to infer that J had given his consent. The standards matter was not

referred to the Authority.

For the reasons 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). In this instance, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Authority points out that this decision relates solely to the complaint that the

broadcast complained about breached s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in that it

failed to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual. In this case,

the individual is the complainant, J.

An item broadcast on 20/20 on 27 July 1997 raised serious questions about the

competence of some aspects of the Wellington Free Ambulance service. A

considerable part of the item involved playing an audio tape from the Ambulance

service control room about an incident in Wainuiomata which involved the collapse

and death of a woman.

The Authority has upheld two privacy complaints in regard to this broadcast (Nos:

1997-135 and 1997-136, both dated 16.10.97). Both complaints were from ambulance

officers who were named in relation to the incident investigated in the item, but neither

of whom was involved in any way with the administrative aspects which were the

object of the investigation reported in the item. The Authority considered that the

privacy of each officer had been intruded upon by the publication of their name and,

in each case, awarded compensation of $500 to the complainant.

As part of the background to the investigation for the broadcast, TV3 was given

permission by the management of Wellington Free Ambulance to record the activities

of ambulance staff in Wellington over several evenings. TV3 explained the background

to the incident which was the subject of the complaint:

One call-out covered by the camera team was to The Backbencher, a Wellington

hotel. In the course of taping, the camera team gave an undertaking not to

identify the patient. No undertaking was given that ambulance officers would

not be identified. Neither 20/20 nor the TV3 Standards Committee can be aware

of what undertakings were made by Wellington Free Ambulance management.

J considered that his privacy was breached as, first, despite the permission from

management, TV3 had not sought his consent, and secondly, because the questions

about the competency of the Wellington Free Ambulance management reflected

adversely on him in view of his appearance during the item.

TV3 assessed the complaint under privacy principles (iii), (v) and (vi). These

principles record:

iii) There is a separate ground for a complaint, in addition to a complaint for

the public disclosure of private and public facts, in factual situations

involving the intentional interference (in the nature of prying) with an

individual's interest in solitude or seclusion. The intrusion must be

offensive to the ordinary person but an individual's interest in solitude or

seclusion does not provide the basis for a privacy action for an individual

to complain about being observed or followed or photographed in a public

place.

v) The protection of privacy includes the protection against the disclosure by

the broadcaster, without consent, of the name and/or address and/or

telephone number of an identifiable person. This principle does not apply

to details which are public information, or to news and current affairs

reporting, and is subject to the "public interest" defence in principle (vi).

vi) Discussing the matter in the "public interest", defined as of legitimate

concern or interest to the public, is a defence to an individual's claim for

privacy.

TV3 declined to uphold the complaint, and summarised:

In conclusion the TV3 Standards Committee also notes that given the 20/20

camera team was present at the call-out to the Backbencher hotel with the

knowledge and co-operation of Wellington Free Ambulance, consent could also

be applied to this complaint.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority notes that J was shown as an ambulance officer in an incident which, it

considers, was reasonably distinct from the incident focussed on. Moreover, the

Authority accepts that the footage of J in the item would enable those who knew him,

to recognise him.

Dealing first with privacy principle (v), as neither the complainant's name, nor

address, or other identifying particulars were released, in the Authority's opinion

principle (v), and consequently principle (vi), do not apply.

Principle (iii) prohibits intentional interference "in the nature of prying" with an

individual's interest in seclusion, if such intrusion is offensive to the ordinary person.

While there could be privacy issues if the person attended by the ambulance crew was

identified, the Authority is required to decide whether the footage of J at work as an

ambulance officer would be offensive to the ordinary person. It does not accept that

the footage was offensive on this basis. Thus, the complaint that alleged a breach of

privacy is not upheld.

The Authority acknowledges that if the footage had linked the incident shown at the

hotel with the incident focussed on in Wainuiomata, then, while privacy would not be

relevant, there could well be questions of fairness involved. However, on this

occasion, the footage was apparently "wallpaper". Moreover, J has confined his

complaint to the issue of privacy so that the Authority is not required to read a

conclusion on whether it was "fair" to include footage of J, had it possibly been

related to the incident focussed on.

The Authority acknowledges that its view on the issues raised by this complaint are

similar to the approach adopted in paragraph 33 of the British Broadcasting Standards

Commission's recently released Code on Fairness and Privacy. It reads:

Agency Operations

33. Broadcasters should be clear about the terms and conditions upon which

they are granted access to police operations and those of other law

enforcement agencies, emergency services or bodies working directly with

vulnerable people. When accompanying such operations, crews should

identify as soon as practicable for whom they are working and what they

are doing. If asked to stop filming on private premises by the property

owner or occupier, or to leave, they should do so unless there is an

overriding public interest. Bystanders caught on camera should have their

identities obscured, where unfairness might arise.

The Authority notes that even if J had not given his explicit consent to be filmed on

this occasion, the television crew had management consent, and their presence by

following ambulances and filming at the incidents attended must have been of such a

nature that it would be reasonable to assume, unless there were strong arguments to

dispel this assumption, implied consent on behalf of J and other officers.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
26 March 1998

Appendix

J's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 1 August 1997

J of Wellington complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c)

of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that a 20/20 item, broadcast at 6.30pm on 27 July 1997,

breached his privacy.

J said that he was an Ambulance Officer with the Wellington Free Ambulance and he

had attended an incident where a TV film crew were present. He was told that the

crew were to film "wallpaper" shots for a forthcoming 20/20 programme. He was not

asked for his permission to be filmed, and, moreover, understood no ambulance staff

at the incident were asked for permission. During the incident, he continued, the

patient objected to being filmed and the Ambulance management advised all the

participants that the footage would not be used in the upcoming broadcast.

J continued:

When viewing the 20/20 programme on Sunday 27/7/97, I was dismayed to find

that some of the footage I have been informed would not be used, was shown

totally out of context to the true incident, and in fact inferred the footage was

the incident as being discussed by the reporter and her "informant" on the

programme.

As he was identified in the segment screened, J said that he had been approached by

people who assumed he had been involved in the incident covered in the programme.

He added:

This is causing me considerable personal distress and is affecting my relationship

with some of the patients I attend in my working capacity, as they are

identifying me with the incidents as per the programme.

The broadcast, he concluded, breached his privacy and some broadcasting standards.

TV3's Report to the Authority on the Privacy Complaint – 19 August 1997

TV3 reported that a 20/20 camera crew, with the permission of the Wellington Free

Ambulance management, recorded activities during several evenings in Wellington.

One call-out covered was to a Wellington hotel where the camera crew gave an

undertaking not to identify the parties. No undertaking was given by TV3 that

ambulance officers would not be identified and, TV3 added, it was not aware of any

undertakings which might have been given by the Ambulance management.

Dealing first with privacy principle (iii), TV3 said it did not apply as the material

screened had been recorded in a public place - outside the hotel. Because of the

public's interest in the story, TV3 did not believe that principle (v) was applicable.

As the crew had attended the incident outside the hotel with the knowledge and co-

operation of the Wellington Free Ambulance, TV3 also considered that consent had

been given for the filming.

J's Final Comment – 21 August 1997

Pointing out that consent by the management did not amount to consent on his part, J

said that he was suffering from the backlash because of the matters contained in the

broadcast. Common decency, he maintained, required TV3 to seek permission from

him and his colleagues to be filmed.

Further Correspondence

J's letter of complaint of 1 August also alleged that the broadcast breached standards

G19 and G16 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The letter was

forwarded to TV3 and the Authority was advised (on 7 August) that TV3 would

respond directly to J on the standards matters.

J was asked by the Authority on several occasions whether he intended to refer TV3's

response to the standards complaint to the Authority for review. After being

overseas for sometime and thus not responding to the Authority's letters, on 25

February 1998 J advised the Authority that he wished to confine the complaint to the

privacy aspect.