BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld direct privacy complaints in relation to broadcasts reporting on a shootout between fugitive Tom Phillips and police, and the location of his two missing children in the bush. The complainant submitted broadcasting the children were ‘cooperative’ with police, and images of their campsite, breached the children’s privacy. Applying the privacy standard, the Authority found these limited details did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy, noting they had been released by police and were in the public domain, and were not intimate or sensitive in nature. While acknowledging the children’s vulnerability and lack of consent to these details being broadcast, given the significant public interest and concern for the children’s wellbeing, it could reasonably be expected that this limited information about their demeanour and where they were found may be disclosed.

Not Upheld: Privacy

The broadcast

8 September 2025 broadcast

[1]  The 8 September 2025 broadcast of 1News interrupted normal programming just before 6pm with breaking news about a development in the Marokopa shootout with Tom Phillips, which had happened earlier that day. Phillips was a police fugitive who had been hiding with his three children in the Marokopa area bush for four years, and the shootout had resulted in Phillips being killed, as well as severe injuries to a police officer. One of Phillips’ children had been with him at the time of the shootout.

[2]  The report began with a live update from a reporter and police on the search for Phillips’ remaining two children. Acting Deputy Police Commissioner Jill Rogers reported to media that soon after 4.30pm that day, they had located Phillips’ remaining children at a campsite in the bush, and the children were with police officers being removed from that location. She confirmed the children were ‘well and uninjured’.

[3]  In response to a question from media as to how she would describe the children’s demeanour when police approached them, the Acting Deputy Commissioner stated, ‘they’ve been cooperative’.

[4]  The ongoing extended item was approximately 26 minutes in length and began with a recap of events of the day, including the following:

Reporter:                    A hearse collected Tom Phillips’ body today, bringing to an end his quest to keep three of his children in hiding. One of those children is now helping Police.

Jill Rogers:                They’ve been cooperative with us in providing information, and that has allowed us to identify an area of activity that we will be examining.

[5]  The item also included detailed exploration of the developing situation over the last four years, the early morning shootout events, the wellbeing of the police officer who was shot, reactions from Marokopa and wider Waikato residents to the conclusion of the Phillips manhunt, analysis from a former police officer and crisis negotiator, and analysis of the difficulty of the children’s reintegration into the community.

9 September 2025 broadcast

[6]  The top story of the 9 September 2025 broadcast of 1News was also about Tom Phillips and his children. The item began with the following:

Host:                                       Tom Phillips’ children are now settled, comfortable and together – that from Oranga Tamariki, saying [the children] are doing well under the circumstances. Also revealing a plan’s been put in place over nearly four years in preparation for them being located, adding everyone’s doing their very best to ensure we can return them to some form of normal daily life. A scene examination of the campsite where two of them were found is underway, these images revealing clues about the family’s lives, hiding out for so long in dense bush [images shown]. Police have also shared more details about how the dramatic shootout unfolded, leaving an officer wounded, and Tom Phillips dead. Here’s [reporter] with today’s developments.

Reporter:                                This is our first look at part of the campsite where police located the remaining Phillips children yesterday. There are two quad bikes, tyres, soft drink cans, and netting, surrounded by bush [images shown]. 

Police Commissioner:          Not an easily found location for anybody, frankly, and that is one of the challenges that we have dealt with over a vast area over the last four years. 

…

Reporter:                                Police believe this is one of several sites used by Tom Phillips [image shown].

[7]  During this dialogue, images were shown of the campsite where the children had been found by police. As explained in the broadcast, the images showed quad bikes, tyres, soft drink cans, netting and other various objects in what appeared to be a small clearing amongst dense bush.  

The complaint

[8]  Sarah Money complained the broadcast breached the privacy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• 8 September 2025 broadcast: the broadcast’s statement that the children had been ‘cooperative’ with police was a breach of the children’s privacy. The sharing of this information was offensive given the seriousness of the circumstances, the vulnerability of the children, and the lack of consent to this information being shared. Children under the age of 16 can reasonably expect high levels of privacy.
• 9 September 2025 broadcast: showing images of where the children had been living was in breach of their privacy for similar reasons. These images were intimate and sensitive and showing them had the potential to impact negatively on the children.

The broadcaster’s response

[9]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• It did not agree that broadcasting the children were ‘cooperative’ ‘is private information which would be offensive to a reasonable person in the children's shoes. This is the bare minimum information which could be given about them and their demeanour. It was provided by [police] and widely reported, so it is in the public realm. It was provided in the public interest as at the time there were concerns that the children may not be “co-operative” given their experiences. Uncooperative behaviour in this context could mean a dangerous situation for both the police and the children as firearms may be involved and as such was completely undesirable.’
• ‘There is considerable concern about the children's welfare and these statements from the Acting Deputy Police Commissioner provide the public assurance that the children are safe.’
• It considered ‘the public concern about the welfare of the children and police provides a strong public interest defence for these statements about the children to be broadcast.’
• In relation to the images of the campsite being shown, TVNZ stated: ‘An objective viewing of the footage shows that nothing 'intimate' is shown, it consists of some vehicles, tarpaulins and drink bottles. No private items are featured. Again, there is strong public interest in showing the footage, the Phillips's were sought for four years and there was considerable public concern in how the family were living in the harsh conditions (many locals in the stories mention the cold at night at that time of year), the pictures provide some background to the expressed welfare concerns about the children. The images are in the public realm and were widely reported as discussed above.’

The standard

[10]  The purpose of the privacy standard (standard 7) is to respect, where reasonable, people’s wishes not to have themselves or their affairs broadcast to the public.¹ The standard states:²

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

Our analysis

[11]  We have watched the broadcasts and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[12]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.³

[13]  In this case, the public interest in the broadcasts was significant. Phillips had been hiding in the bush with his children for four years, evading police and largely undetected, except for sporadic sightings. Public concern for the children’s welfare and safety was high given the length of time they had been living in the bush, separated from society. The story, details of the family and names and ages of the children had been reported on extensively over the four-year period.⁴ The broadcasts provided updates on major developments in the situation – namely, that Phillips had been involved in a shootout where he was killed, and his two missing children were later found by police by themselves in a bush campsite.

[14]  The privacy standard aims to respect, where reasonable, people’s wishes not to have themselves or their affairs broadcast to the public. It seeks to protect their dignity, autonomy, mental wellbeing and reputation, and their ability to develop relationships, opinions and creativity away from the glare of publicity. However, it also allows broadcasters to gather, record and broadcast material where this is in the public interest.⁵

[15]  Generally, there are three criteria for finding a breach of privacy:

• The individual whose privacy has allegedly been interfered with was identifiable.⁶
• The broadcast disclosed private information or material about the individual, over which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.⁷
• The disclosure would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.⁸

[16]  The complainant submitted that broadcasting the children were ‘cooperative’ with police (ie that the child who was with Phillips at the shootout was ‘cooperative’ in assisting police to find their siblings, and the siblings were ‘cooperative’ when they were found in the bush), and images of their campsite, breached the children’s privacy.

Identification

[17]  The children were identified in both broadcasts – their names and ages were given, and their photos were shown. Even if these details had not been provided, the children would have been identifiable. As noted, these details had already been made public by police and were widely reported by the media over the four-year period they had been missing, as part of the ongoing search.⁹

Information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy

[18]  The key issue is whether the broadcast disclosed information over which the children had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[19]  Relevant factors to consider in assessing whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy include:¹⁰

• whether the content is in the public domain – a person will not usually have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to matters in the public domain, but the public nature of such matters is not definitive¹¹
• whether the content is intimate, sensitive or traumatic in nature
• whether the individual could reasonably expect the content would not be disclosed
• the nature of the individual (for example, children under the age of 16 can reasonably expect high levels of privacy).

[20]  We acknowledge the complainant’s concern for the children’s privacy and agree the privacy of children featured in the news should be carefully considered. Children under the age of 16 are afforded high levels of privacy under the standard. The children in this case are particularly vulnerable, had recently experienced a traumatic event, and did not consent to the details at issue being broadcast in the media. However, applying the above factors, we concluded that the details the children were ‘cooperative’ with police and the images of their campsite, did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, noting:

• These details were in the public domain, having been released by police¹² (the statement that the children were ‘cooperative’ came directly from the Acting Deputy Police Commissioner in two separate media briefings). They were widely publicised by other media outlets.¹³
• The detail that the children were ‘cooperative’ with police is not intimate or sensitive. It is a very limited, generic description and no further details were provided about their interactions with police.
• While the images of the campsite showed the challenging conditions in which the children were living, the images did not reveal any intimate details about the children themselves or show any items of a sensitive or personal nature – they showed quad bikes, tyres, soft drink cans, netting and other various scattered objects.
• It could reasonably be expected that these limited details about the children’s demeanour and where they were found may be disclosed in the context of the conclusion of a high-profile police operation, where there was significant public concern regarding the children’s living conditions.

[21]  In light of the above factors, we do not consider the limited details disclosed attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy. We therefore do not go on to consider the last criteria for finding a breach of privacy: whether the disclosure would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.

Public Interest

[22]  While we have not found a breach of privacy in this case, we note it is a defence to a privacy complaint to publicly disclose matters of legitimate public interest. A matter of legitimate public interest is a matter of concern to, or having the potential to affect, a significant section of the New Zealand population (ie it is more than something that merely interests the public). For the defence to apply:

• The level of public interest must be proportionate to the seriousness of the breach of privacy. 
• The public interest must relate to the disclosure of the particular information or recording that is alleged to breach privacy.¹⁴

[23]  We note the strong public interest in the extended search for Phillips and his children, and in the developments that occurred on 8 and 9 September 2025. There was widespread concern for the wellbeing of Phillips’ children both nationally and internationally.¹⁵ In our view, disclosing that the children were, most importantly, ‘well and uninjured,’ but also ‘cooperative’ with police, was appropriate in the public interest as it was unclear how the children would react to police after being in hiding with Phillips (who had just been killed) for four years. Showing images of the campsite where they were found responded to public concern for how the children had been living in the bush for that time.

[24]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the privacy standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
21 January 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Sarah Money’s direct privacy complaints to the Authority – 16 September 2025

2  TVNZ’s response to complaints – 14 October 2025

3  Money’s confirmation of no further comments – 9 November 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
² Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ See, for example, Jordan Bond “Marokopa father apologises to sister after 17-day search: ‘Sorry for worrying you’” RNZ (online ed, 1 October 2021); Amy Williams “Elder sister appeals to renew search for missing Waikato family” RNZ (online ed, 7 May 2022); Raphael Franks “The 19-month hunt for missing Marokopa man Tom Phillips and his three children” NZ Herald (online ed, 3 August 2023); “Missing Marokopa kids: Sister fears they’ll feel forgotten about” 1News (online ed, 5 August 2023)
⁵ Commentary, Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
⁶ Guideline 7.1
⁷ Guidelines 7.3 and 7.4
⁸ Guideline 7.8
⁹ See, for example Jordan Bond “Marokopa father apologises to sister after 17-day search: ‘Sorry for worrying you’” RNZ (online ed, 1 October 2021); Amy Williams “Elder sister appeals to renew search for missing Waikato family” RNZ (online ed, 7 May 2022); Raphael Franks “The 19-month hunt for missing Marokopa man Tom Phillips and his three children” NZ Herald (online ed, 3 August 2023); “Missing Marokopa kids: Sister fears they’ll feel forgotten about” 1News (online ed, 5 August 2023)
¹⁰ Guideline 7.4
¹¹ Guideline 7.5
¹² Police Media Centre “Update 4 – Critical incident, Waitomo” (9 September 2025) New Zealand Police <www.police.govt.nz>
¹³ See, for example: Daniel Perese “Final two Marokopa children found ‘well and uninjured’ after over three years missing” Te Ao Māori News (online ed, 8 September 2025); Natasha Gordon “Marokopa children found after Tom Phillips killed in police shooting” NZ Herald (online ed, 8 September 2025); Vandhna Bhan “Missing New Zealand children found after fugitive dad on run for years shot dead by police” BBC (online ed, 8 September 2025); 1News Reporters “Tom Phillips’ body released, certain details remain suppressed” 1News (online ed, 11 September 2025); Kelly Ng “First photos of site where NZ bushman hid children released” BBC (online ed, 9 September 2025); 1News Reporters “First photos show remote campsite where Marokopa children found” 1News (online ed, 9 September 2025); Raphael Franks & Natasha Gordon “Tom Phillips’ hideout revealed: Images show campsite where fugitive holed up his children” NZ Herald (online ed, 9 September 2025)
¹⁴ Guideline 7.9
¹⁵ See, for example: Tom Rose “World media continue coverage of fugitive Tom Phillips’ death after all three children found safe” NZ Herald (online ed, 9 September 2025); Eva Corlett “Hidden for nearly four years: how the saga of fugitive father Tom Phillips unfolded in New Zealand” The Guardian (online ed, 8 September 2025); Aleks Phillips “How a shootout ended a four-year search for a NZ bushman and his three children” BBC (online ed, 9 September 2025); Charlotte Graham-McLay “A New Zealand father who evaded authorities with his 3 children for years is shot dead by the police” AP News (online ed, 8 September 2025); Todd Symons “Police shoot dead fugitive father and find his three children missing for years in wilderness” CNN (online ed, 10 September 2025)