BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Child actors were used in the Assignment retrospective on the Christchurch Civic

Creche child abuse case, broadcast on TVOne at 7.30pm on Thursday 27 July 1995,

to reconstruct the interviews which were part of the evidence presented in the case

against the workers at the creche.

Ms Sutton and Mrs Walsh each complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that it

was wrong and insensitive to use children to talk about intimate words and terms.

They maintained that the broadcaster had failed to protect the child actors and that the

material was unsuitable for screening when children might be watching.

Explaining that there had been no reports of any adverse reactions by the children

involved and that a warning advising viewer discretion had been broadcast, TVNZ

maintained that the standards had not been breached. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's

decision, Ms Sutton and Mrs Walsh referred the complaints to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is its practice, the Authority

has determined the complaints without a formal hearing.

A reconstruction of the evidence given by some of the children at the trial of one of

the Christchurch Civic Creche workers was enacted by child actors in the Assignment

programme broadcast by TVNZ on TVOne on 27 July 1995 at 7.30pm. The

programme examined issues surrounding the case against the Civic creche workers and

the ultimate conviction of one of them, largely on the basis of the evidence presented

by creche children at the trial. The child actors reenacted interviews with

psychologists in which they disclosed the details of events at the Civic creche which

resulted in the conviction.

Ms Sutton and Mrs Walsh complained that the programme breached broadcasting

standards because it exploited the young children who were required to reenact

personal, intimate and distressing detail about the abuse. In addition, Mrs Walsh

complained that the item should not have been screened at 7.30pm, an hour when

many children might be watching, because its content was offensive and unsuitable for

children. Both Ms Sutton and Mrs Walsh deplored the use of the children to reenact

the disclosure of what they described as the sordid detail of the trial.

TVNZ responded to the complaints, addressing Ms Sutton's concerns under

standards V12 and V17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, and Mrs

Walsh's complaint under standard G12. Standard G12 requires broadcasters:

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their normally accepted viewing times.

The other standards read:

V12 The treatment in news, current affairs and documentary programmes of

violent and distressing material from either local or world trouble spots

calls for careful editorial discernment as to the extent of graphic detail

carried. Should the use of violent and distressing material be considered

relevant and essential to the proper understanding of the incident or

event being portrayed, an appropriate prior warning must be

considered.

Particular care must be taken with graphic material which portrays

especially disturbing images, such as:

- ill-treatment of people or animals

- close-ups of dead and mutilated bodies of people or animals

- views of people in extreme pain or distress, or at the moment of death

- violence directed at children or children in distress.

Material shown in late evening may be more graphic than that shown

during general viewing times.

V17 Scenes and themes dealing with disturbing social and domestic friction

or sequences in which people – especially children – or animals may be

humiliated or badly treated, should be handled with great care and

sensitivity. All gratuitous material of this nature must be avoided and

any scenes which are shown must pass the test of relevancy within the

context of the programme. If thought likely to disturb children, the

programme should be scheduled later in the evening.

Addressing first the question of the use of the child actors, TVNZ reported that the

decision to use them had not been taken lightly and that the parents of the children

were aware of the programme's content, approving the script in advance, and were

present when the filming occurred. It suggested that many children were already

familiar with the issues highlighted in the Civic creche case through educational and

media campaigns which had warned them about the risk of abuse. It then examined the

reasons for the editorial decision to use the reconstructed inserts of videotaped

evidence. The Crown, it noted, had made the tactical decision to base its case solely

on the most credible videotaped allegations made by the children, and the jury then

saw the children being cross-examined by the defence. In TVNZ's view, it was

important that viewers saw as realistically as possible how the evidence was

presented to the jury.

Turning to the allegation that standard G12 was breached by the inclusion of child

actors, TVNZ maintained that their appearance had not been to their detriment and no

adverse effects had ensued as a result. To the complaint that standard V12 was

breached by the use of the children acting in the reconstructions, TVNZ responded

that the children's familiarity with the issue of child abuse and matters raised in the

trial meant that they suffered no distress from their participation. It repeated that no

adverse reactions had been reported by their parents nor had there been a negative

response created by the fact that the children could be identified through acting out

their parts.

As far as standard V17 was concerned, TVNZ did not believe that the appearance of

the children was gratuitous. It considered that the programme would have reinforced

safety messages being conveyed at schools and would have been unlikely to have

disturbed children who were watching. It added that it did not consider Assignment to

be the programme of choice for young viewers, and suggested that those children who

were watching would have been likely to be in the company of adults.

Next, TVNZ turned to the complaint that it had failed to be mindful of the effect of

the programme on children. In its response to the complainants' concerns that the

material was unsuitable for children and that it was broadcast at an hour when children

would be watching, TVNZ pointed out that a very specific warning was broadcast in

the introduction to the item advising viewer discretion and that viewers would have

been left in little doubt as to the subject matter. It repeated the argument that young

viewers would have been watching the programme in the company of adults, since it

did not believe that it was a programme of choice for children. It declined to uphold

any aspects of the complaints.

In the Authority's view, the children who were involved in the reconstructions

provided a dramatic interpretation of the evidence which was presented to the jury

about the allegations made by some of the creche children. Since the evidence of the

children was a crucial part of the trial, it was appropriate to include it in the

documentary coverage. In considering the complainants' concerns, the Authority

noted first that the possible negative effects on the child actors of recounting the

evidence given was not a broadcasting standards matter. It therefore confined its

deliberations to an examination of the content of the programme and the standards

cited.

In response to the complaint that standard G12 was breached because the subject

matter was unsuitable for broadcast at an hour when children would be watching, the

Authority expressed some disquiet about the early hour at which the programme was

broadcast. However, its concerns were partly allayed by the fact that a clear warning

was given before the broadcast, advising viewer discretion. In addition, the Authority

noted, the programme did not focus on the more salacious, prurient aspects of the

evidence and the events leading up to the trial and, although some matters were

distasteful, the Authority did not consider they would have caused distress to children

watching. It believed the matters discussed, such as inappropriate touching, would

have been familiar to most children, while some of the more bizarre allegations,

published at the time of the trial, were not included in this reconstructed version. The

Authority concluded that TVNZ, by advising viewer discretion and by not including

the more prurient matters, had abided by the obligation to be mindful of the effects on

children. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint under standard G12.

Turning to the complaint that standard V12 was breached by the inclusion of

distressing material, the Authority considered, for the reasons given above, that TVNZ

had exercised care in its presentation and had provided a sufficient warning to parents

as to the subject matter. It did not consider that the scenes which were reenacted

would have caused distress to any children who were watching the programme and

declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, it examined the complaint under standard V17. It considered the principal

concern under this standard was that material which was unsuitable for children was

broadcast and, because this had been dealt with under the other standards cited, it

decided to subsume the standard V17 complaint under standard V12.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
30 November 1995

Appendix I

Ms Sutton's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 28 July 1995

Pamela Sutton of Nelson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

broadcast of Assignment on TVOne at 7.30pm on 27 July 1995.

The programme had dealt with the child abuse case at the Christchurch Civic Creche

and involved the use of children in the reconstruction of the interviews. Ms Sutton

wrote:

It seemed totally wrong that children were required to act these parts using

(likely) unfamiliar intimate words and terms.

Ms Sutton expressed concern that talking about the abuse matters could have a

detrimental effect on their relationships with adults. Moreover, the young actors

would be recognised and the loss of privacy would make them vulnerable.

The broadcast, she concluded, failed to protect the child actors.

In response to an enquiry from TVNZ as to which standards were allegedly breached,

in a letter dated 13 August 1995 Ms Sutton nominated standards V12 and V17.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 25 August 1995

Pointing out that Assignment on 27 July had taken a retrospective look at the Civic

Creche child abuse case, TVNZ acknowledged that there were no specific standards to

deal with Ms Sutton's concern about the use of child actors in the reconstruction of

the videotaped interviews which were presented as evidence in the case against Peter

Ellis. It accepted that the standards nominated came as close as any.

TVNZ reported that the decision to use the children in the reconstruction was not

taken lightly. Two of the three children involved were from TVNZ staff families and

the third from an agency. In each instance full parental co-operation had occurred.

That had involved approval in advance by the parents of the scripts to be used.

Moreover, TVNZ commented:

The [Complaints] Committee also noted that many if not most children today

are familiar with the broad issues highlighted by the Christchurch Civic Creche

case. Campaigns have been held in schools and in the media to warn children of

the modern day risk of abuse and the need to report it.

Throughout the children acting the parts performed with enthusiasm and with

no sign of any discomfort at the lines they were asked to deliver.

It added:

The editorial decision to use brief reconstructed inserts of the videotaped

evidence was important to the understanding of the Peter Ellis trial. The Crown

made a tactical decision to base its case solely on the most credible videotaped

allegations made by the children. They jury then saw the children cross-

examined by lawyers representing Ellis. The fact that these interviews, and not

the more bizarre claims of other children, were presented was, in the

committee's view, a telling point in the whole case.

TVNZ maintained that it was important for viewers to see the evidence as presented

to the jury.

Turning to standard V12, TVNZ pointed out that the item was introduced with a

strong warning. Moreover:

In trying to relate this standard to the child actors the committee felt that their

familiarity with the issue of child abuse, and with the Peter Ellis trial, meant that

they suffered no distress from their participation. Checks with parents of the

children since the broadcast suggest there has been no adverse reaction - and the

parents are not expecting any. Similarly the fact that the children were identified

through acting out their parts has caused no subsequent concern.

As for standard V17, TVNZ said that the appearance of the children was not

gratuitous and while respecting Ms Sutton's deep concern, felt that it was misplaced.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

Ms Sutton's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 10

September 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's Decision, Ms Sutton referred her complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Ms Sutton repeated that her complaint focussed on the use of child actors in the

reconstructions of the interviews screened and that she felt that standards V12 and

V17 were appropriate.

To her suggestion in the complaint that cartoon reconstructions could have been used,

TVNZ had argued that it was important for viewers to see the material presented to

the jurors. However, Ms Sutton stated, viewers only saw a selection of tapes but,

more directly relevant to her complaint, the use of cartoons would not necessarily

have trivialised the event.

As for the standard V17 aspect of the complaint, Ms Sutton said that the use of child

actors - because they were the children of staff members - was not a satisfactory

response. Noting that TVNZ had also dealt with matters about which she had not

complained, Ms Sutton stressed:

My complaint focuses on the USE of CHILD ACTORS in reconstruction

scenes of interviews questioning children as to whether they had been abused.

This for a programme to be screened throughout NZ.

She was pleased that the parents had approved the scripts and that no adverse

reactions had been reported but, she concluded:

I consider TVNZ showed lack of sensitivity in allowing child actors to take part

in reconstruction scenes of this documentary production. The reconstruction

scenes involved the children being questioned as to whether they had been

abused. In allowing this I believe TVNZ failed to protect the child actors.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 25 September 1995

TVNZ summarised the programme as containing a retrospective look at the

Christchurch Civic Creche child abuse case in which questions were asked about the

evidence presented to the jury and the environment in which the whole affair took

place.

It noted that Ms Sutton was concerned about the use of the child actors in the

reconstructions of the interviews with creche children. It acknowledged Ms Sutton's

concern for the children involved, and suggested that she was in effect stating that the

parents of those children had been irresponsible in allowing their children to take part

in the programme. TVNZ denied that was the case, noting that the parents had been

closely involved in work on the script and had removed any terms of phrases which

they felt their children would be uncomfortable with. It stated that the children had

suffered no ill effects and their parents were confident there would be no ill effects.

It added:

With respect to both Ms Sutton and the Authority, we do not believe the

programme standards were intended to interfere in a parental decision, freely

given, to allow children to take part as actors in a current affairs documentary.

It is a private decision and not one in which society should become involved.

Had the sequences been shot without any parental permission and cooperation,

and had the complaint come from a parent of one of the children, the situation

would have been altogether different.

Responding to Ms Sutton's comment that it was wrong that children were required to

act those parts, TVNZ denied that they were "required" to do so, noting that no

coercion was involved and the children took part willingly with the support of their

parents.

To the suggestion that cartoons be used as a preferable way of conveying the

information, TVNZ asked where Ms Sutton had seen the technique effectively used,

and suggested that she may have confused documentary film making with the artist's

sketches used in courtroom coverage in daily news work. If so, it added, the

situations were quite different.

TVNZ concluded:

We are sorry that Ms Sutton remains dissatisfied and we recognise her well-

intentioned concern for the children. We simply feel it is misplaced.

Ms Sutton's Final Comment to the Authority - 4 October 1995

When asked to make a brief final comment to the Authority, Ms Sutton denied that

she had made any critical comments about the parents of the child actors who had

appeared on the programme. She repeated that her comments were directed at TVNZ

for the programme format which allowed the children to take part.

She questioned TVNZ's assertion that the children had suffered no ill effects as a

result of appearing, noting that it was rather a difficult assumption so soon after the

event. She repeated that she did not support the many and various arguments put

forward by TVNZ as to why it was essential to have child actors. She wrote:

This case is so serious that other techniques could have been used which would

in no way have trivialised the documentary.

Ms Sutton added that she found TVNZ's comments both condescending and

unreasonably presumptuous.

Appendix II

Mrs Walsh's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 2 August 1995

Mrs M J Walsh of Invercargill complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

content and timing of Assignment broadcast on TV1 at 7.30pm on 27 July 1995.

The programme was concerned with the child abuse case at the Christchurch Civic

Creche. Mrs Walsh wrote, concerning the Ellis trial:

...we were subjected by the media to saturation coverage of every unsavoury

detail of the case. There was no escape from it, and I firmly believe there is no

justification whatever for a regurgitation of it, particularly at such an early hour.

She wrote that there were rules prohibiting the screening of such offensive material

before 8.30pm and asked whether TVNZ followed its own rules.

However, in her view, worse was the involvement of the child actors:

...to play out those appalling and unnecessary reconstructions - why expose

even more children to the degradation and sordidness of the lives of some of their

elders?

She pleaded with TVNZ to allow children to enjoy some childhood while they can.

In a further letter dated 18 August, Mrs Walsh clarified that in her view the

programme breached standard G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice

and repeated that material of this nature should not be screened at a time when many

children are watching. Further, she considered that the use of the child actors was

irresponsible and exploitative of children.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 25 August 1995

Summarising the programme as a retrospective look at the Christchurch Civic Creche

child abuse case, TVNZ noted that Mrs Walsh's principal concern was the use of

child actors in reconstructions of the videotaped interviews which were presented as

evidence in court.

According to TVNZ, its investigations revealed that the decision to use children in the

reconstructions was not taken lightly, and of the three children used, two came from

TVNZ staff families. The parents were fully aware of the programme's content and

were present when the pieces were being recorded. The third child was from an

agency and had full parental cooperation. It wrote:

Each script was approved by the parents in advance so that the children were

not confronted with terms for bodily functions or private parts with which they

were not familiar. Those parts of the court transcripts which contained terms which

parents felt would perplex their children were not used.

TVNZ also noted that many children today were familiar with the issues raised by the

case and that campaigns had been held in schools and the media to warn children of the

risk of abuse and the need to report it. It asserted that the children acting the parts did

so with enthusiasm.

Regarding its decision to use the children's evidence, TVNZ wrote:

The editorial decision to use brief reconstructed inserts of the videotaped

evidence was important to the understanding of the Peter Ellis trial. The Crown

made a tactical decision to base its case solely on the most credible videotaped

allegations made by the children. The jury then saw the children cross-examined

by lawyers representing Ellis. The fact that these interviews, and not the more

bizarre claims of other children, were presented was, in the committee's view, a

telling point in the whole case.

TVNZ argued that it was important that viewers saw what the jury saw.

With respect to standard G12, TVNZ was satisfied that the appearance of the child

actors had not been harmful to them. Regarding the suitability of the 7.30pm time

slot, TVNZ noted that a specific warning had been given in the studio introduction to

the item. Given the studio introduction, it added, viewers would have been in little

doubt about what the programme was to explore.

TVNZ did not believe the programme should have been screened later in the evening.

It suggested that Assignment was not likely to be the programme of choice to young

viewers, and that those who were watching would have been likely to be in the

company of adults. It believed the programme would have reinforced messages being

delivered at school and other forums.

TVNZ stated that it respected Mrs Walsh's concern, but felt it was misplaced. It

declined to uphold her complaint.

Mrs Walsh's Complaint to the Authority - 13 September 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold her complaint, Mrs Walsh referred

the matter to the Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mrs Walsh stated that as a mother she would not expose her own children to

participate in this kind of programme. In her view it was possible to warn children

about possible dangers without educating them beyond their years in "the vileness of

some human behaviour".

As for the time slot, Mrs Walsh agreed that Assignment was hardly the choice of

young viewers and therefore, she argued, why was it shown at that hour? Further, she

asked, why was it necessary to have the case explained to the public in such detail?

She argued that if it must be shown, it should be at a much later hour and without the

unnecessary reconstructions.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 25 August 1995

With respect to the time of broadcast and Mrs Walsh's suggestion that Assignment

should be shown at a later hour, TVNZ responded that it was important that major

current affairs programmes be available to an early evening audience. It noted that

New Zealanders do not routinely stay up late and, in the interests of fostering

informed debate on matters of interest, investigative journalism pieces should be

available to the widest possible audience.

TVNZ maintained that since the Civic Creche case was widely reported on early

evening news bulletins at the time of the trial, it could see no reason why it should not

be discussed further in a current affairs programme.

On the matter of the child actors, TVNZ stated that while it supported Mrs Walsh's

right to not involve her own children, she had no right to ask the Broadcasting

Standards Authority to rule that other parents were wrong to allow their children to

appear in the programme. It added that the parents were fully informed and were

present during the filming. There was no coercion involved and the parents were

confident their children suffered no harm.

In response to Mrs Walsh's question as to why it was necessary to have the case

explained in such detail, TVNZ responded:

With respect to Mrs Walsh we feel this comment suggests that she did not grasp

the "raison d'etre" for the programme. The programme raised some fundamental

questions about the manner in which justice was administered in this case. It

was not simply a recap of everything that had gone on before. We would argue

that the reconstructions were vital in illustrating and understanding how the

Crown delivered its case, and the strategy adopted by the lawyers for the

defendant, Peter Ellis.

Mrs Walsh's Final Comment -7 October 1995

When asked to make a brief final response, Mrs Walsh reiterated her objection to the

screening of the programme at 7.30pm. She noted that previous broadcasts of

Assignment (until the previous week) had been at 8.30pm and, considering the content

of this programme, she was of the view that it should have been broadcast at the later

time. She wrote:

The trailers for the programme alarmed me to the extent that I was sure that it

would be cancelled, and I was amazed that it was shown at all, particularly at

this early hour.

Mrs Walsh denied that she had criticised the parents of the children involved, adding

that she had been careful not to do that. She merely wished to point out that one only

needed to look at today's society to see the results of premature exposure to the

crudities of some adult's behaviour.

She explained that her questioning of the reasoning behind the programme was purely

rhetorical and only to emphasise the unsuitability of the time slot and content for

children's participation and viewing.