Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether surprise witness at the retrial had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to not include viewpoints of the defence and David Bain – not upheld – Daryl Young was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – it was an authorial documentary approached from a particular perspective as envisaged by guideline 4b…...

ComplaintZMFM – "Bonk patrol" – man accused by neighbours of noisy love-making approached at home by announcer – comments broadcast live – man felt humiliated – breach of privacy Findings Privacy – s4(1)(c) – complainant not identified – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An announcer from ZMFM set out on what he called the "bonk patrol" during the breakfast session broadcast on 1 May 2001. He visited a woman who complained that her sleep was disturbed because of the frequent sounds of love-making in the flat upstairs. The announcer then woke up the man upstairs and asked him about his noisy love-making. The questions and answers were broadcast. PD, the occupant of the flat upstairs, complained direct to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on a threat made against MP Sue Bradford that was published under the username GarfieldNZ on the website Twitter – news reporter tracked down the individual who owned the username – contained footage of reporter knocking on the front door of the individual’s house and talking to him about the threat – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item showed the wording of the Twitter message – viewers not misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of door-stepping did not disadvantage the complainant – complainant’s response provided to viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on “Chloe of Wainuiomata” receiving diversion for shoplifting – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – private facts disclosed were in the public arena – not upheld (This headnote does not form part of the decision. ) Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 30 April 2008, reported that Chloe, a woman who gained notoriety in a 1990s television programme and who was nicknamed “Chloe from Wainuiomata”, had been charged with shoplifting. During the item, the presenter stated: Chloe, whose slippers made her a 90s celebrity, has been charged with shoplifting. The court heard that Chloe, formally of Wainuiomata, tried to steal twenty three dollars and sixty four cents worth of pet care products from a Napier supermarket....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-052:Collins and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-052 PDF521. 77 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reporter went in search of the famous actor Michael Crawford in Kerikeri – locals were informed that he lived in the area – part of Mr Crawford’s gate was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Crawford was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about Mr Crawford – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During an item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 on 15 March 2012, a reporter travelled to the small Northland town of Kerikeri in search of British actor Michael Crawford at his “South Pacific hideaway”. A number of locals were shown footage of Mr Crawford in his various roles and were informed that he lived in the area....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News, about claims from the Department of Conservation (DOC) that staff had been abused and attacked by anti-1080 protestors, breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was unlikely to mislead or misinform audiences, as it contained comments from various parties including a DOC representative, an anti-1080 campaigner and a National Party MP. The Authority highlighted the importance of the reporting on issues of public importance in an accurate and balanced manner, finding that the broadcaster did so on this occasion....

Summary An episode of a reality series entitled Petvet was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 7 October 1999. It followed the day to day activities at a veterinary clinic in Lower Hutt and included a sequence showing the clinic’s dealings with a couple who wished to have their cat put down. L, the cat’s owner, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the sequence breached her right to privacy. She complained that the documentary had portrayed her and her partner as callous owners of animals and they had been subjected to criticism as a result. She also noted that the programme had identified her by name and, in addition, had included a sequence showing the veterinarian dialling their confidential telephone number which, she said, could have led to "menacing phone calls"....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-065 Dated the 25th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by H C HILDRETH of Waiuku Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary The final episode in the series Weddings reported that a marriage featured in an earlier episode had broken up after two months. It contained footage of the wedding shown in the earlier programme, and included comment from the bride about the reasons for the break-up. The episode was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 14 June 1999. MT, the bridegroom involved, complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast had breached his privacy. He had declined to take part in the follow-up programme, he wrote, and had informed the programme maker that he wanted neither his name used nor his face shown. He said he felt exploited by the use of the wedding photographs on the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant – interviewed one of the hostages – image was blurred – allegedly unfair and in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – hostage not identifiable in the broadcast – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – hostage consented to the interview – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 27 January 2009, reported on an armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant in Auckland in which five staff had been held hostage. The reporter stated that "a female hostage told 3 News she kept reliving the moments she thought would be her last, and she still can’t bear to be identified"....

ComplaintWeddings: Happily Ever After? – update on some couples who appeared in Weddings – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – consent form for footage from Weddings – subsequent information freely given – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Weddings: Happily Ever After? was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2001. The programme reported on the state of the relationships of some of the couples who had appeared on previous episodes of Weddings. [2] Kylie and Simon Bernie, one of the couples, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme had breached standards relating to privacy. Mr and Mrs Bernie maintained that they had not consented to the inclusion of information about them or their baby daughter in the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography – showed two men standing at a vending machine – face of the accused not shown, side profile of the other man was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – item implied complainant was defendant on child pornography charges – incorrect – seriously unfair – upheldOrderCosts to the Crown of $3000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 at 6pm on 7 March 2005 reported on the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography via the internet. The reporter said that due to a judge’s ruling, 3 News was unable to name the alleged offender....

ComplaintHolmes – sensitive information about two women found on second-hand computer hard drive – women able to be identified – breach of women’s privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – Complaints of FL, Mr Elliott and Mr Herrmann – upheld; Ms MacDonald’s complaint – one aspect upheld by broadcaster; one aspect subsumed under Standard G4 Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $5,000 compensation to each of the women whose privacy was breached(3) $2,500 costs to the Crown Cross-reference: 2002-071–072 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 May 2001 reported on sensitive information about two women which had been found on a second-hand computer hard drive. Excerpts from the interviews with the two women were included in the broadcast. [2] FL, one of the women concerned, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaints under sections 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on the alleged practice of women offering sex in exchange for taxi rides – showed nightlife footage of central Auckland including shots of a number of young women – reporter interviewed taxi drivers and stated that one taxi driver had allegedly accepted sex in exchange for a taxi ride – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and violence FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Ms Smith and taxi driver were not identifiable – Ms Gardner was identifiable but the item did not disclose any private facts about her – the footage of women was used as visual wallpaper for the story and clearly was not suggesting that the women were associated with the practice reported on, which was reinforced by a clarification broadcast the following night…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm concerning a car accident breached several standards by featuring images of dead bodies in the car wreck. The complainant believed there were dead bodies shown in the wreck, which they found highly distressing. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s distress, however, after carefully reviewing the broadcast, found that no bodies were featured. In considering the images of the car wreck shown, the Authority considered that the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards, so the good taste and decency standard was not breached. It further found that an audience advisory was not required, and the programme information standard was not breached. The balance, accuracy, privacy, and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached....