Search Rapua

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item on alleged police pack rape of Louise Nicholas – footage shown of former police house where rapes allegedly occurred – current house owner alleged item breached privacy and was unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identification of current owner of house – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday reported on allegations of possible improper behaviour by the police, and a cover up in relation to accusations of rape by Louise Nicholas against three policemen. It was broadcast on TV One on 21 March at 7. 30pm. [2] The item included shots of the former police house where the rapes were alleged to have occurred. A car was shown in the driveway of the house....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT – host broadcast listener’s email address and said “send him an email” – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle 4 applies to email addresses – personal email address is also a private fact under privacy principle 1 – however host’s disclosure of email would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Willie and JT programme, broadcast on Radio Live on the afternoon of 22 October 2010, one of the hosts read out an email from a listener in response to the hosts’ discussion about union action over the film The Hobbit. After reading out the email, which strongly disagreed with the host’s opinion, the host said: . . . That’s from [listener’s full name]....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item reported shooting of a police officer in Papatoetoe – stated which street the incident occurred in and showed a driveway cordoned off – letterbox number visible – reporter spoke to two neighbours – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identifiable individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 at 10. 30pm on Tuesday 22 December 2009 reported that a policeman had been shot three times while investigating a car in a driveway. The Nightline reporter stated that two men had been questioned by police, and that “residents of [street and suburb where the incident occurred] had some questions of their own”. Two residents were shown commenting on the incident....

...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]My Kitchen Rules showed the contestants shopping at a Countdown supermarket in Christchurch, in which the complainant was briefly visible in the background. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the footage of the complainant breached her privacy. The footage was extremely fleeting and she would have been identifiable to only a very limited group of people, paying close attention to the footage. The complainant's whereabouts were not a private fact because she had voluntarily disclosed this on social and professional networking sites and this information, along with her employment at the Countdown store, were disclosed in a press release. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During My Kitchen Rules, a competitive cooking show, the contestants were filmed shopping at a supermarket in Christchurch. The complainant, CE, was shown very briefly in the background....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of electricians in Target house – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – complainant was identifiable – complainant had interest in seclusion in Target house – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – complainant did not give his informed consent to the broadcast – insufficient public interest in footage to justify the breach of privacy – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, featured hidden camera footage of employees from three different electrical companies who were called into the Target house to install a heated towel rail and change a light fitting. The companies were each given a score out of ten for their employees’ performance....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a direct privacy complaint regarding a 1 News item reporting on Kamahl Santamaria’s resignation from Breakfast, where it was stated that ‘allegations of inappropriate behaviour have surfaced’ (reported earlier that day by Stuff). The Authority found Santamaria did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information reported, and the item carried high public interest. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – footage of interpreter during murder trial – High Court ruled that interpreter’s image was not to be broadcast – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – disclosure of complainant’s presence at trial would not be considered highly offensive by an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 23 July 2009 reported that the Justice Minister was calling for the repeal of the defence of provocation, following the conclusion of two murder trials. [2] The item included footage of both murder trials. Two brief shots of one of the defendants sitting in the dock were shown, with a woman sitting alongside the dock....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about file sharing software – showed images from a snuff movie three times during short item – woman seen begging not to be filmed with a gun held to her head – gunshot heard on one occasion but with no image – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, fairness, children’s interests and violence standards – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standard 1, spoke to news staff and broadcast on-air apology – complainants dissatisfied with decision and action taken FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law or glamorise the criminal activity shown – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – irrespective of whether the snuff movie was real or fake, no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unable to determine whether woman treated fairly – decline…...

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....

Complaint Coromandel FM – news item inaccurately reported that fire fighter was charged with drunk driving causing death – privacy of fire fighter Findings (1) Unsatisfactory complaints procedure – warning (2) Principle 8 – relevant (3) Privacy Principles (i) and (ii)– facts inaccurate, not private – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A news story broadcast more than once during the morning of 11 April 2000 on Coromandel FM reported that a named Morrinsville fire fighter had been charged with drunk driving causing death. MM, the fire fighter’s wife, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the fire fighter’s privacy by disclosing incorrect information about the offence he had been charged with. MM reported that the man had in fact been charged with careless driving causing death....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item which reported on the road toll over Labour Weekend and showed images of an accident where a woman was hit by a truck. The Authority found the privacy, fairness, accuracy and law and order standards were not breached. The complainant alleged the driver of the truck was identified and the broadcast gave the impression they were at fault for the accident. The Authority found the item did not identify the driver of the truck nor reveal private information about them. The item did not refer to the driver, nor give the impression the truck driver was not driving safely. The item reported on what police had said were potential causes of crashes, but it was clear this was not referring to the specific incidents which had taken place over the weekend. Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness, Accuracy, Law and Order...

ComplaintFair Go – repairs to computer unsatisfactory and costly – inaccurate – unbalanced – misleading – breach of privacy. FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – no uphold Standards G6 – not applicable Standard G4 – use of secret microphone by protagonist – unfair – uphold Privacy principle (iii) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Fair Go on 15 November 2000 investigated a complaint from the owner of a computer about the extent and the cost of some repair work carried out by Auckland Computer Services. Fair Go is a consumer advocacy programme broadcast weekly at 7. 30pm on TV One. Steve Moodley, trading as Auckland Computer Services, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint reported that the Sky World building, a multi-storey entertainment complex in central Auckland, had not been issued with a warrant of fitness in 435 days, and that the building remained open throughout that time, with the knowledge of Auckland Council, despite critical fire safety compliance issues. The item (which was broadcast on free-to-air television as well as on radio) included footage of the reporter attempting to contact the owner of the complex, ‘A’, visiting his home and offices, where he spoke to two employees, ‘X’ and ‘Y’. JNJ Management made a direct privacy complaint to the Authority, submitting that these segments breached the privacy of A and his employees....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Sunday, featuring a family who complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) about allegedly inadequate maternity healthcare following the death of their baby, breached the fairness and privacy standards. The Authority found it was unfair to name the complainant, HV, as the consultant obstetrician on the case prior to the HDC completing its investigation or making any findings. Singling out HV in this way had the effect of predetermining an adverse conclusion about their responsibility (whether or not that was the broadcaster’s intention), and the complainant was not informed about the proposed broadcast or given an opportunity to respond or mitigate any reputational impact. On privacy, the Authority found the fact HV was subject to an HDC complaint was information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy....

The Authority has upheld complaints from two complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Panthak Vichar, broadcast on Access Community Radio Inc (Planet FM). During the programme, the hosts made a number of allegations against the complainants, regarding their fundraising activities and whether they were trustworthy, and played a recorded phone conversation with Jaspreet Singh on-air. The Authority found that the comments reflected negatively on the complainants, and that Jaspreet Singh would not have known that the phone call would be played on-air. The Authority upheld the complaint under the fairness standard but did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint. Upheld: Fairness. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Thane & Dunc included an interview with a man, X, who had a relationship with a couple (the complainant and Z). During the interview, X described the nature of the relationship. He did not name the couple, referring to them as ‘A’ and ‘B’. A second interview with X was broadcast the following day, during which the hosts told X they had spoken with the couple, who alleged the relationship was abusive. The hosts interrogated X about his behaviour, then demanded X apologise and agree to make no further contact with the couple involved. The Authority upheld a complaint that these broadcasts breached the privacy of the complainant and Z....