Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...

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....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-159 Dated the 27th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C C of Queenstown Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News breached the complainant and her grandchild’s privacy. The item, which reported on the implications of GP shortages in Northland, included footage of the complainant and her grandchild (who was in a moonboot with crutches) leaving a medical centre, and of them in the waiting room. The Authority acknowledged the sensitive nature of health information and encouraged broadcasters to obtain the consent of persons filmed in a medical centre (particularly where children are involved). However, the Authority found there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular facts disclosed (being attendance at a medical centre) noting the complainant was initially depicted outside the centre, from a public footpath, where there was no expectation of privacy. No additional information was disclosed by the subsequent footage from within the waiting room. Not Upheld: Privacy...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-002633 PDF78. 95 KB Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand – Stake Out: Models Exposed – hidden camera footage of magazine editor photographing models in his bedroom and in an apartment – allegations in the programme that he was not honest about how the models’ photographs would be used – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy principles (i), (iii) and (vi) relevant – no private facts revealed therefore privacy principle (i) not breached – broadcast of hidden camera footage was in breach of privacy principle (iii) – no public interest – upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $3,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $393....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court AP46/02 PDF1. 3 MBComplaint20/20 – "Paradise Lost" – item on child prostitution in Fiji – breach of children’s privacy – unfair depiction of child victim – discrimination on account of sex, race and ageFindingsPrivacy – privacy principle (i) – public disclosure of private facts about children – highly offensive and objectionable facts – no public interest defence under privacy principle (vi) – upholdStandard G4 – child sex abuse victim treated unfairly – upholdStandard G13 – high threshold – no upholdCross-referenceDecision No. 1999-125–137OrderBroadcast of statementCosts to complainant of $463. 50This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] "Paradise Lost", an item on 20/20, was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 15 July 2001....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – two items about a cat captured by complainant who thought it was a stray and took it from West Auckland to Penrose – second Holmes item advised cat found – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Eating Media Lunch – rebroadcast of some footage from Holmes – allegedly a breach of privacy FindingsHolmes items: Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) and Guidelines 5a and 5b – no factual errors – item reported that letter of apology received since Holmes involvement, not because of Holmes involvement – not upheld Standard 6 (Fairness) and Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f – light-hearted item – no intention to humiliate complainant – not upheld FindingsEating Media Lunch Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld…...

SummaryThe police response to a drink-drive incident was featured on Emergency Heroes broadcast by TV3 on 23 February 1999 at 7. 30pm. A man was seen being arrested for driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. His voice and facial features were partially obscured in the programme, although promos for the programme were broadcast unaltered. JD, the convicted driver, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the promos, which did not conceal his identity at all, and by the programme, because he maintained it inadequately concealed his identity. TV3 Network Services Ltd responded to the Authority that JD had given consent at the time of his arrest to the broadcast of the footage, and had known the purpose for which it was being filmed....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Heartland – programme included image of the complainant – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard P9 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed – disclosure of the footage of him would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A episode of Heartland called “Grey Lynn: Summer in the City” was broadcast on TVNZ Heartland at 10. 10pm on 27 November 2010, and repeated at 8am on 28 November 2010. Near the beginning of the programme, a shot of the complainant leaning out a window in his house was briefly shown. Referral to the Authority[2] Te Awhitu Ransfield lodged a direct privacy complaint with the Authority under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item looked at “cheap lunches for kids” as part of series on child poverty – reporter interviewed children on their way to school and asked them what they had for breakfast and lunch – children were obscured by traffic, and had their faces and in some cases their clothing pixellated – footage allegedly in breach of children’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – children were not identifiable and so footage did not breach their privacy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live was introduced as follows: Amongst the thousands of responses we have had to our series on child poverty, perhaps the question most often asked is, “What are the parents doing?...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story explored the issue of unconscious bias. During the introduction, footage of members of the public walking down the street was shown. Each individual was zoomed in and highlighted with special effects. The Authority upheld a complaint from JW, one of the individuals shown, that she was unfairly ‘showcased’ during the segment. Rather than being a face in the crowd, the edited footage used filming techniques that singled out the complainant and drew her into the issue under discussion without her knowledge or consent. This unduly impacted on her dignity and was unfair. The Authority recognised that bias is a sensitive issue and has the potential to cause hurt and offence. It is also an important social issue....

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 not upheld a complaint that commentary during live coverage of a Black Caps test match amounted to socially irresponsible alcohol promotion, in breach of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. The subject of alcohol purchase and consumption did not comprise most of the segment. Aside from commentator Scotty Stevenson stating he was ‘all for […] casually deleting a bunch of tins’, the discussion did not explicitly reference alcohol consumption. Any inferences that could be made about alcohol consumption were not antisocial and did not amount to advocacy of excessive alcohol consumption. The balance and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Sunday breached the complainant’s privacy, and was unfair to the complainant, by broadcasting an image taken on the complainant’s property. The Authority found the complainant was not identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard, and was not ‘referred to’ in the broadcast for the purposes of the fairness standard. Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness...

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

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-172 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GEORGE W GRAY of Maungaturoto Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about items on Newshub and The AM Show, which reported on a Police raid of a gang house and featured footage of the complainant’s property, with the house number blurred. The Authority found that the privacy standard did not apply in this case, as the complainant was not identifiable in the broadcast and no private information or material was disclosed about them. As the house was only filmed to the extent visible from the street, the broadcaster did not intrude upon the complainant’s interest in solitude or seclusion in a way that was highly offensive. The Authority recognised the public interest in the broadcast and found that the harm alleged to have been caused by the complainant did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression.   Not Upheld: Privacy  ...

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)....