Search Rapua

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 1989More FM – news item reported on the trial of a man facing drugs charges – named a witness in the trial – allegedly in breached of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – open court hearing with no name suppression – name of witness already in the public domain – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item on More FM, broadcast between 6. 30am and 8am on Friday 25 July 2008, reported on the court trial of Palmerston North man, SC, who was facing charges relating to methamphetamine possession and supply. The presenter introduced the item by stating: Palmerston North man, [SC], is on trial in the High Court on charges of possession and possession to sell methamphetamine....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989RadioWorks news item broadcast on More FM, Radio Live and Radio Pacific – complainants had been convicted of failing to move stock ahead of flooding – news item reported that Federated Farmers would fund appeal – SPCA said appeal condoned negligence – one named farmer reported as saying appeal should not be supported by Federated Farmers as flooding was not unusual and, on the occasion resulting in the conviction, neighbours had offered to move cattle – allegedly lacked balance, inaccurate, unfair and breached privacyFindingsPrinciple 2 (law and order) – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – complaint dealt with under Principle 5Principle 5 (fairness) – no unfairness in broadcaster’s dealings with the complainants – no unfairness with comments advanced – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – complaint dealt with under Principle 5Principle…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – item on a man named Paul Cleave and his attempts to get his camera repaired – item explained that Mr Cleave had received a loan camera from the retailer – Mr Cleave was shown stating that he was not going to return the loan camera – the presenter made a number of comments about him taking the loan camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, balance and fairness standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – the Authority received conflicting evidence on two statements complained about and declined to determine them – the other three statements complained about were accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a fair representation of Mr Cleave’s conduct – item’s change in focus was prompted by Mr Cleave’s own behaviour – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Mr Cleave signed a consent form allowing…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – interview with motorbike stuntman at the Western Springs Speedway – showed footage of two men operating leaf blowers outside the speedway – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – broadcast did not disclose that complainant was completing a community work sentence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 11 October 2006, included an interview with one of the “Crusty Demons” – a motorbike stunt team which was visiting New Zealand. The item was filmed mostly at the Western Springs Speedway. At the conclusion of the segment, footage of two men operating leaf blowers in a surrounding area of the speedway was shown....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about marketing 42 Below vodka in the American market – featured interview with gay bar owner – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed – consent given for interview – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 12 June 2005 featured a marketing manager, James Dale, who had been appointed to promote a New Zealand vodka called 42 Below in the American market. [2] The item included an interview with the owner of a gay bar, John Libonati, who had sent Mr Dale an email condemning the disparaging comments Mr Dale had made about gay culture. Mr Libonati said that he had received a reply from James Dale which had included a number of insults....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Campbell Live focused on a travel agency whose customers alleged that trips they had paid for had not been booked. During the item a brief exchange took place between the reporter and a ‘family friend’ of the owners of the travel agency, the complainant, outside the vacant agency. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached Mr Malakouti’s privacy. The footage was filmed in a public place and the item did not disclose any private facts about him. There was no suggestion Mr Malakouti was associated with the travel agency, so the broadcast of the footage was not highly offensive. Not Upheld: Privacy  Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live focused on a travel agency whose customers alleged that trips they had paid for had not been booked....

ComplaintOne News – file footage of partly naked meningitis victim – unconscious – privacy FindingsPrivacy principles (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) – facts not highly offensive and objectionable – public interest and consent defences – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary File footage of an unconscious man then suffering from meningococcal meningitis was shown during an item on One News broadcast on TV One between 6. 00 and 7. 00pm on 30 April 2000. Kathleen Hobo complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the footage breached the man’s privacy, as he was filmed naked, except for a disposable nappy. In its response, Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, said that the man’s mother had consented to the filming before the original broadcast, and that it considered the rebroadcast footage was neither voyeuristic nor exploitative....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-076 Decision No: 1998-077 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALICE HALLIWELL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-123:Waters and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-123 PDF310. 68 KB...

The Authority upheld a privacy complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on residents’ concerns about ‘boy racers’ in a particular Christchurch suburb. It featured an interview with a resident reported as being ‘too scared to be identified’. Close-up footage, including a side-on view of part of her face (unblurred), revealed her demographic, gender, the length and colour of her hair, voice, profile of her nose, clothes, watch, a distinctive ring and the side of her glasses. The Authority found these features enabled identification of the interviewee beyond family and close friends. Their disclosure would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in her position, given she participated on the understanding she would not be identified. The Authority was not persuaded the defence of informed consent applied to the breach of the woman’s privacy....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of Sunday about voluntary ‘DIY’ sperm donation in New Zealand, and in particular the complainant’s history of frequent sperm donations, breached broadcasting standards relating to privacy, fairness and accuracy. The Authority found there was a high level of public interest in discussing the risks associated with using DIY sperm donors, as well as CA’s extensive donation history in particular, which outweighed the potential harm to CA. The Authority concluded the programme did not disclose any private information about CA, and overall CA was treated fairly and was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to allegations made about him in the programme. Doorstepping CA (approaching him on the street with cameras rolling) was not unfair in the circumstances, and he willingly engaged in a lengthy interview with the reporter....

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of Renters showed the inspection of a rental property in circumstances where the tenant was not home. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast breached the tenant’s privacy. By the time of this repeat broadcast in June 2013, the tenant had not lived at the property for some years, so she was not identifiable from the broadcast. Nevertheless the Authority expressed concern about the production company’s ‘usual practice’ of only notifying and obtaining consent from the landlord, and not the tenant. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] An episode of Renters showed the inspection of a rental property in circumstances where the tenant was not home. The programme was broadcast on 23 June 2013....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of the complainant looking at the camera and giving the finger. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the complainant’s privacy. The footage of his private property had been filmed more than eight years earlier, and the complainant had made it clear he wanted no involvement in the programme. Despite repeated objections, his image continued to appear in the opening titles of series four of the programme. Upheld: PrivacyOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of a man looking at the camera and giving the finger. The episode was broadcast on 5 December 2013 on TV2....

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....