Search

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Parekura Horomia – comments made during filming break – broadcast of private conversation – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – Privacy Principle (iii) – intentional interference with Mr Horomia's interest in solitude or seclusion – offensive – no consent – insufficient public interest – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An interview with the Minister of Maori Affairs designate, Parekura Horomia, was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 24 July 2000. In an addendum to the interview, viewers heard a recording of comments made by Mr Horomia during a filming break about his distrust of the media. Jo Crowley complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached Mr Horomia's privacy....

SummaryA segment of Motorway Patrol broadcast on 22 July 1999 on TV2 at 7. 30pm showed four people undertaking evidential breath tests, having been suspected of driving while intoxicated. Two had their identity concealed by electronic masking. The other two were clearly identifiable. Atihana Johns complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of his niece being breath tested by police at the police station was unfair to her and breached her privacy because her identity had not been concealed. He complained that she had been treated in a racist and contemptible manner, and that the broadcast of the programme had caused his niece and her whanau considerable distress. His complaint that the programme breached his niece’s right to privacy was referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about fathers frustrated with the Family Court system – included interview with father who had been involved in custody dispute – identified his eight-year-old daughter – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, in breach of daughter’s privacy and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts about child – not in child’s best interests – no public interest in disclosing facts – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster presented significant viewpoints on controversial issue under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and guideline 9i – child unnecessarily identified and exploited – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 13(1)(d) – payment to JB for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $3,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500 This headnote…...

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and Lies in Cambodia – documentary about New Zealand man jailed in Cambodia for the rape of five teenage girls – interviewed a Swiss man who was assisting with the case and who had been accused but acquitted of similar crimes – filmed man with a hidden camera – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of hidden camera footage in breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in the footage – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – man treated unfairly by broadcast of hidden camera footage – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-1299 PDF930. 17 KB Complaint under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News and Late Edition – item about a Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal hearing – complainant gave evidence – name suppressed – complained that she was identifiable from audio of voice and visual of part of her body – item included complainant’s occupation – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable because job description given together with visuals and audio – name suppression order given by court or tribunal not in itself grounds for privacy complaint – name suppression in this case given to all witnesses to ensure that they could continue to function effectively as Board employees – disclosure of B A’s role as witness in these circumstances highly offensive – upheldOrder Compensation to the complainant of $1500 under s....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Apna Ne Bana Di Jodi – personal ads included complainant’s age, gender and phone number – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – telephone number disclosed in a highly offensive manner – resulted in harassment of complainant – upheldOrderSection 13(1)(d) – payment of $500 to the complainant for breach of privacyThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Apna Ne Bana Di Jodi, broadcast on APNA 990 at around 11. 30am on 19 April 2010, a host read out a number of “matchmaking messages” which included people’s ages, gender, ethnicity or religion, and phone number. One of the messages stated: 46-year-old Hindu male, New Zealand citizen, [mobile phone number]. Complaint [2] NJ lodged a complaint with APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the broadcast of his phone number had breached his privacy....

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....

ComplaintHolmes – sensitive information about two women found on second-hand computer hard drive – women able to be identified – breach of women’s privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – Complaints of FL, Mr Elliott and Mr Herrmann – upheld; Ms MacDonald’s complaint – one aspect upheld by broadcaster; one aspect subsumed under Standard G4 Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $5,000 compensation to each of the women whose privacy was breached(3) $2,500 costs to the Crown Cross-reference: 2002-071–072 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 May 2001 reported on sensitive information about two women which had been found on a second-hand computer hard drive. Excerpts from the interviews with the two women were included in the broadcast. [2] FL, one of the women concerned, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint Private Investigators – complainants’ boat repossessed from their property – no attempt to pixellate them – humiliating – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy principle (i) – facts disclosed objectionable – no public interest – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement; compensation of $750 to each of the complainants This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The repossession of a boat on which money was owing for the outboard motor was shown in a segment on Private Investigators broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 November 2002. Private Investigators is a reality series which shows the range of activities undertaken by private investigators. [2] Mr and Mrs B Radford, the owners of the boat, complained through their solicitors to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached their privacy....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Solid Gold – The Edge – The Rock – messages broadcast over 4 days asking anyone who knew whereabouts of complainant to contact The RadioWorks – improper use of missing person report – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsPrinciple 3, guideline 3a – privacy principle (iii) – disclosure of name because of a company’s unpaid debt – intrusion into seclusion – majority uphold; privacy principle (iv) – no intention to ridicule – no uphold; privacy principle (v) – no public interest in name disclosure – majority uphold Principle 5, guideline 5c – reference to complainant unfair – majority uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-2060 PDF46. 29 KB Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – interviewed a woman who was a committed patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment & Treatment) Act 1992 and receiving electroconvulsive therapy – woman said that she wanted the treatment to stop – item reported the view of the psychiatric hospital that the woman “was not well enough at the time of the interview to have given informed consent to it” – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 1 – disclosed private facts about woman – woman not capable of giving informed consent – no public interest in disclosing the private facts – upheldOrderSection 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,500This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintInside New Zealand – debt collection – privacyFindings Privacy – identification – private facts revealed – no public interest – upholdOrderCompensation of $500 to complainant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A documentary about debtors and debt recovery workers was the subject of an Inside New Zealand programme broadcast on TV3 on 7 June 2000 at 8. 30pm. A debt recovery worker was seen outside the home of a couple with a number of children, who were said to have a debt of $1600. M complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy and the privacy of her family was violated by the broadcast, which included footage of family members filmed through a fence, and a recording of the conversation between M and her husband and the debt recovery worker....

SummaryAn item on Holmes examined "Operation Youthcare", a police and community initiative dealing with some problems arising from children and young people frequenting the city centre of Nelson at night. Part of the filming took place in the police station where a number of young people were being held or questioned. It was reported that, in some cases, their parents were summoned to the station. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 June 1999, commencing at 7. 00pm. G complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his and his daughter’s privacy were breached by the filming. Both he and his daughter were identifiable, he wrote. He also complained that the broadcast of the details of a private conversation between his daughter and a police officer breached her privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – anonymous caller revealed that named person had visited a medical clinic – disclosed confidential medical details – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $2,067 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On the afternoon of Monday 9 October 2006, the hosts on The Edge radio station stated that they had “a bit of inside goss” from an anonymous caller who had previously worked at a medical centre for two weeks. The hosts asked “are you breaking patient confidentiality here or something? ” to which the caller laughed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of caregivers hired to look after elderly actor – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – caregivers had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – individual caregivers did not provide informed consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of individuals’ privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6c – footage obtained “through misrepresentation or deception” – not required to use deception in the public interest – unfair to broadcast hidden camera footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on 3 July 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reporting on a Waipawa dog breeder – television crew entered complainant’s land and pried without permission – filmed pit in which dogs were buried – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – actions of crew amounted to intentional interference with complainant’s interest in solitude and seclusion – intrusion was into matter complainant was entitled to keep private – majority considers intrusion offensive to reasonable person – no public interest defence – discussion of principles of interpretation of privacy principle (iii) – discussion of principles relating to public interest – majority upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....