Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During an episode of Campbell Live, the reporter took viewers on a 'tour' of a beach house belonging to former Cabinet Minister Judith Collins. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that Ms Collins' privacy was breached, as the broadcaster advised that Ms Collins had consented to the filming and broadcast of the footage. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] During an episode of Campbell Live, the reporter took viewers on a 'tour' of a beach house belonging to former Cabinet Minister Judith Collins. The item was introduced by the presenter as follows: During the Dirty Politics saga which ended with her resignation as Minister as we know, we drove out [to the beach house] repeatedly trying to talk to Ms Collins – no luck....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-144 Decision No: 1997-145 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by STEVE ALLOWAY of Auckland Broadcaster 95bFM of Auckland S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintOne News, Te Karere – report on death of child – footage showing child’s body – disclosure of private facts which are highly offensive and objectionable; broadcast not in the best interests of the child – child’s body shown FindingsPrivacy – deceased person not an individual under the Broadcasting Act – no uphold ObservationNotwithstanding that the footage was not consistent with the respect normally shown in death, the unique circumstances justified the broadcast – the Authority recommends that broadcasters seek independent and relevant Maori cultural advice when dealing with important matters relating to Maori This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A report describing the circumstances surrounding the death of a child who had been killed by his mother’s partner was the subject of items on One News and Te Karere, broadcast on 25 June 2000 at 6. 00pm and 26 June at 5. 15pm respectively....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-1299 PDF930. 17 KB Complaint under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News and Late Edition – item about a Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal hearing – complainant gave evidence – name suppressed – complained that she was identifiable from audio of voice and visual of part of her body – item included complainant’s occupation – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable because job description given together with visuals and audio – name suppression order given by court or tribunal not in itself grounds for privacy complaint – name suppression in this case given to all witnesses to ensure that they could continue to function effectively as Board employees – disclosure of B A’s role as witness in these circumstances highly offensive – upheldOrder Compensation to the complainant of $1500 under s....

Complaint89. 8 ZM – "spot the difference" competition – complainant’s incorrect entry read – complainant identified – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – privacy foregone by entering competition – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The results of a "spot the difference" competition were broadcast on 89. 8 ZM on 11 January 2002 at approximately 4. 50pm. During the broadcast, KD’s incorrect answers and her name, city of residence and email address were read out on-air. [2] KD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy had been breached by the broadcast. She said that the broadcast had caused her humiliation and distress. [3] The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster of 89. 8 ZM, did not accept that KD’s privacy had been breached in the context of a "fun competition"....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert and Jono’s Drive Show – Valentine’s Day “Win a Divorce” promotion – broadcast was sabotaged by participants – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – concept of the promotion was not reflected in the broadcast – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] The Rock radio station ran a promotion called “Win a Divorce” which culminated in a broadcast during Robert and Jono’s Drive Show on the afternoon of 14 February 2012. The hosts rang a second participant on the instructions of the first, her partner, who allegedly wanted a divorce....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-164 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GARY REYNOLDS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item on girl gangs in Hawke’s Bay – interviewed current and former gang members – contained footage of four young teenage girls who were shown wearing gang-style clothing and spray-painting graffiti on a public basketball court – included a re-enactment involving two young girls breaking into a house – gang members shown drinking alcohol and talking about fighting – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – four young girls identifiable – disclosed private facts – children under 16 could not consent – item not in the best interests of the children – girl aged 16 agreed to participate on condition her identity would be secret – identities not sufficiently protected – disclosed private facts about the girls – highly offensive disclosure – upheld Standard…...

Summary A news item reported that an 18 month old girl was rescued from a fiercely burning home as a result of the heroism of a fire officer. The item was screened on One Network News, broadcast between 6. 00-7. 00 pm on 15 July 1999, and repeated on Breakfast beginning at 7. 00 am the following morning. Mr Le Comte complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that footage showing the young unconscious girl receiving medical treatment was an invasion of her dignity and privacy. As the item had emphasised the fire officer’s heroism, had not disclosed offensive facts and had not ridiculed the young girl, Television New Zealand Ltd did not accept that the item had breached her privacy. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-069:Presland and Northland Radio Company Ltd - 1992-069469. 1 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A repeat broadcast of an episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the surviving driver that the repeat broadcast, without his consent, breached his privacy. The complainant signed a consent form, and the timeline between the accident and the repeat broadcast more than four years later, in the absence of any further objections from him, suggested that he gave his consent freely, and not under duress. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The crash occurred on 4 December 2009, and the episode subject to complaint – a repeat broadcast – screened on 24 May 2014 on TV ONE....

ComplaintOne News – two items – coverage of murder trial – complainant summonsed as juror – shown standing near to accused in the dock – implied supporter of accused – breach of privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – broadcasts did not maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual – current privacy principles not applicable – uphold as breach of s. 4(1)(c) OrderCosts to complainant of $500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The trial in the Whangarei High Court of George Aaron Marson for murder was covered by Television New Zealand Ltd. An item on One News on Monday 28 May 2001 showed Mr Marson pleading not guilty. The same footage was used in an item reporting the jury’s guilty verdict screened on One News on 1 June. On each occasion, DA was shown standing behind the dock, about a metre away from the accused....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Sport – Terror Talkback – breakfast host Martin Devlin telephoned randomly a person with same name as sportsperson in the news – alleged intentional intrusion in person’s seclusion – breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 – Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle iii – the broadcast telephone call did not amount to prying – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “Terror Talkback” is a regular feature of the Martin Devlin Breakfast Show on Radio Sport. It involves a telephone call to a person selected randomly who has the same name as a sportsperson in the news. At about 6. 20am on 23 February 2004, the host referred to the appointment of a Mr Shand as the Manager of the All Blacks. He then indicated he had randomly chosen the telephone number of a Mr Shand....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and Lies in Cambodia – documentary about New Zealand man jailed in Cambodia for the rape of five teenage girls – interviewed a Swiss man who was assisting with the case and who had been accused but acquitted of similar crimes – filmed man with a hidden camera – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of hidden camera footage in breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in the footage – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – man treated unfairly by broadcast of hidden camera footage – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintLove Thy Neighbour – examined dispute between neighbours – complainant declined invitation to participate – address disclosed – owner and house shown – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – principles (i) and (v) relevant – (vi) applies – public interest defence applicable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Love Thy Neighbour examines neighbour disputes. A boundary dispute between neighbours in Whangarei was one of the items dealt with in the repeat episode broadcast at 11. 15am on TV One on 7 September 2002. [2] B Jobe complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the disclosure of the information which identified them and their house breached their privacy. [3] In response, TVNZ advised the Authority that the item had reported the circumstances of a neighbourhood dispute, and had not disclosed any private information....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on disabled boy who was left alone on a school bus for four-and-a-half hours – included interview with manager of the bus company responsible – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable but item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant in a manner that would be considered highly offensive – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 on 8 March 2012, reported on a disabled boy who was left alone on a school bus for four-and-a-half hours. The item included interview footage of the manager of Kawerau Coaches, the bus company responsible. The manager was not named and her face was pixellated....

The Authority has upheld a complaint about two broadcasts on Humm FM, finding that the complainant was treated unfairly. The Authority found that comments made by the host during the broadcasts were likely to reflect negatively on the complainant and to impact on his personal and professional reputation. As the complainant was adversely affected, he should have been given an opportunity under the fairness standard to respond to the comments made about him. The Authority emphasised that the right to broadcast carries with it privileges and responsibilities, and in this case the host used his platform to air his personal grievances against the complainant without giving him an opportunity to comment, which was unfair....