Search Rapua

Complaint under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about the Teachers Council registering people with convictions – referred to the case of a high school teacher who had been “convicted of supplying P to four students” – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 2 – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while item was ambiguous as to whether Mr Arthur supplied P to his own students, it was inaccurate to state that he supplied P to students – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to state that Mr Arthur supplied P to students – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989High Country Rescue – profiled the attempted rescue of a tramper who died – made various references to the man’s “tramping party” and the “friends of the injured man” and showed brief footage of some of them with their faces blurred – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not “take part” in the programme and was not sufficiently “referred to” for the purposes of the fairness standard – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – footage of the complainant was not broadcast and so no disclosure of information obtained through an intrusion with the complainant’s interest in seclusion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of New Zealand’s dairy industry. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the complainant and breached his and his employee’s privacy, and that the item was inaccurate and lacked balance. Neither RZ nor his employee was identifiable during the footage and they were not participants, or referred to, in the item. The item was also sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. Comments in the item that the complainant alleged were inaccurate were clearly opinion and analysis and thus not subject to the accuracy standard, and the item was not otherwise misleading....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-130 Decision No: 1996-131 Decision No: 1996-132 Dated the 10th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PS of Rotorua and C J DAISLEY of Rotorua Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-039 Decision No: 1998-040 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by C of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintPrivate Investigators – item on alleged employee theft – police diversion – privacy – identificationFindings(1) Privacy – majority finding that complainant identified – no private facts revealed – police diversion scheme does not provide anonymity – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Private Investigators was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 4 July 2000. Private Investigators is a series about the activities of private investigators in New Zealand. SL, through her lawyer, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast had breached her privacy. The programme had included an item about alleged employee theft at an Auckland delicatessen....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on singles looking for love – showed footage of people apparently at singles party – complainants shown – complainants were not at party – footage of them taken several years ago – allegedly breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair – accuracy and fairness complaints upheld – privacy complaint declined – complainants referred privacy complaint to AuthorityFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On 29 May 2006, TV3’s Campbell Live, broadcast at 7. 00pm, included an item about singles “looking for love”. The item focussed on a singles party held recently in Auckland, and showed numerous shots of people socialising, apparently at the party, including a shot of the complainants smiling for the camera....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: Leaving the Exclusive Brethren – experiences of five people who had left the Exclusive Brethren – allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed – no offensive intrusion – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the Exclusive Brethren – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A documentary entitled Inside New Zealand: Leaving the Exclusive Brethren was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 18 August 2005. The programme followed the experiences of five people who had left the Exclusive Brethren....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 1 News item reported on an incident involving All Black Aaron Smith. Two witnesses claimed that while on official All Black business, Mr Smith used a disabled toilet in Christchurch Airport for a ‘sexual encounter’ with a woman who was not his partner. The item briefly showed a photo of Mr Smith and his partner. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached Mr Smith’s partner’s privacy. Information about her identity and her relationship to Mr Smith was publicly known and had already been the subject of widespread media coverage in relation to the incident prior to the broadcast. This was therefore not information over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The 1 News item also disclosed less information about Mr Smith’s partner than other media outlets had already disclosed....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-001:Cook and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-001 PDF301. 93 KB...

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. On 15 March 2019 a special 1 News broadcast covered the terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques. The broadcast featured footage of victims being taken into hospital, many of whom had visibly sustained gunshot injuries and/or were identifiable. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the coverage breached the privacy standard. The Authority found that media coverage of this event had high public interest in light of the unprecedented nature of extreme violence that occurred. The media had an important role to play in informing the public of events as they unfolded, including the nature and scope of injuries suffered and the action of first responders, including medical personnel. The Authority acknowledged that the repeated use of footage of identifiable victims amounted to a breach of privacy but found that the public interest defence applied....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-087 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaint by ENID BANCROFT of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Documentary New Zealand: Life on the Street – profiled several homeless people in Christchurch – included a man who had been murdered shortly after participating in the programme – allegedly breached the privacy of his family and was unfair to him and his familyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – accurate portrayal of homeless man – not unfair – complainant and his family not taking part or referred to – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Documentary New Zealand:Life on the Street was broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 21 February 2005. The documentary profiled several homeless people in Christchurch, including a man named Shannon who had been murdered shortly after taking part in the programme....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-027–028:Kyrke-Smith Family and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-027, 1993-028717. 05 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News reported on three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges, and showed images of two lists of names, in which the complainants' names featured. The Authority declined to uphold complaints that by showing their names during a discussion about the accused sex offenders, the item breached the complainants' privacy. Their position as Parliamentary Service employees was not private, the inclusion of the complainants' names was peripheral to the item, and there was no suggestion that the complainants were the accused sex offenders, as the three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges were explicitly identified by both their names and their images....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]APNA 990 broadcast a segment disclosing that a named company allegedly owed it money and asking for the director of that company to 'contact us [as soon as possible] to sort out the account'. The Authority upheld the complaint that the broadcast breached the privacy of the company director because a debt is a private matter between the debtor and the person or company to whom the debt is owed. The disclosure was highly offensive as the complainant could reasonably expect the debt to remain private, and there was no public interest in disclosing it to the public at large....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Newshub reported on ‘cash for job’ work scams in New Zealand. The reporter described the experiences of one worker, who alleged he had been exploited by his employer and told to pay $30,000 for his job as a technician at an internet café. GL, who was named and whose photo was shown during the item, was said to have ‘demanded’ $15,000 from the worker as part of the scam. GL complained that the item was inaccurate and unfair, because he did not demand or receive any payment from the worker and he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him....