Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

The Authority has upheld part of a complaint about satirical comedy series, James Must-a-pic His Mum a Man, finding it was unfair to the complainant, James Mustapic’s father, and action taken by the broadcaster (having upheld two aspects of the fairness complaint) was not sufficient to remedy potential harm to the complainant. Comments were made throughout the series which the Authority found created a negative impression of James’ father and had the potential to adversely affect him and his reputation – meaning the broadcaster should, in the interests of fairness, have informed him of the nature of the programme and his participation prior to broadcast....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported on the case of a Palmerston North schoolgirl who had been abducted earlier in the day, and subsequently located and reunited with her family. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the girl and her sisters. The item did not disclose any private information about the girl; the details given were in the public domain at the time of the broadcast and carried high public interest, as they may have assisted with the search for her abductor. The girl’s sisters were not identifiable in the item and therefore their privacy was not breached. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News reported on the case of a Palmerston North schoolgirl who had been abducted earlier in the day....

ComplaintAssignment – mental health system – complainant a mental health campaigner – introduced as mother of schizophrenic – prior agreement not to refer to her family – unfair – breach of privacy – upheld by TVNZ only as unfair FindingsPrinciple 3 and Guideline 3a – privacy principle (i) – disclosure of mental illness highly offensive and objectionable – breach of mother’s and son’s privacy – uphold OrdersCompensation of $1500 to the complainant; Contribution to the payment of CD’s expenses of $750. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Issues about the mental health system in New Zealand were addressed in Assignment broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 7 November 2002. The complainant is a mental health campaigner and agreed to participate so long as there was no reference to her family....

The Authority has declined to determine a direct privacy complaint about the broadcast of information concerning the circumstances of a murder victim’s death. The privacy standard only apples to living individuals, and on this basis did not apply. The Authority reiterated the need for sensitivity and care to be taken in reporting of this kind. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all the circumstances): Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that broadcasting an image of Julian Batchelor’s car (sign-written with ‘stop co-governance’ advertising, including Batchelor’s website domain name, and cell phone number) breached Batchelor’s privacy due to the car’s licence plate not being blurred. The Authority found that no private information had been disclosed – noting the car was parked in a publicly visible place, and the Authority has previously found brief footage of licence plates in a broadcast does not amount to an offensive disclosure of private facts, for the purposes of the standard. Not Upheld: Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 3/95 Dated the 24th day of January 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by JUDITH MACKENZIE of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about life and death of Antonie Dixon – showed death certificate – contained name of paramedic who responded to medical emergency – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – paramedic’s name and involvement in Mr Dixon’s case not private facts – death certificate is a public document – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 2 March 2009, discussed the life and death of Antonie Dixon, who was convicted of several charges including murder, and later found dead in his cell at an Auckland prison. While the reporter and Mr Dixon’s sister discussed his death, Mr Dixon’s death certificate was shown on screen....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 104/94 Dated the 3rd day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRANT SUMNER of Christchurch Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning a Sunday investigation report looking into issues with emergency housing in Rotorua, and a follow-up item on 1 News. The majority of the Sunday broadcast focused on allegations against the largest contracted emergency housing provider in Rotorua, Visions of a Helping Hand (Visions), and its contracted security company Tigers Express Security Ltd – both led by CEO/Director Tiny Deane. Visions complained the broadcast was unbalanced, misleading, and unfair to Visions, Tigers Express Security and Deane. Noting the very high public interest and value in the story overall, the Authority found most of Visions’ concerns with the broadcast could have been addressed had it provided a substantive response to the reporter on the issues raised – who had made numerous attempts over more than a month to obtain comment from Visions and Deane....

A PDF of Decision 1999-053 can be downloaded here:Loos and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1999-053 PDF185. 19 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – live news bulletin reported on Christchurch earthquake – included close-up footage and interviews with victims – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – unedited live news item reporting on extraordinary natural disaster – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – people shown identifiable – victims vulnerable – however, no interference in nature of prying – public interest – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – unscheduled live news programme – warnings – public interest – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not identify section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Motorway Patrol breached the privacy standard. A short segment of the programme focused on a Senior Constable attending a crash on an Auckland motorway. It featured footage of the complainant as a ‘Good Samaritan’ who had stopped to check on the person in the crashed vehicle. The Authority acknowledged the impact of the broadcast on the complainant, who said they were not informed the filming was for broadcast purposes and were not asked for consent. However, applying the relevant guidelines under the privacy standard, the Authority found the broadcast did not disclose information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy and would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....

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....