BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The impact on a young man of a false accusation of rape was examined in an item on

60 Minutes, entitled "Cry Rape", broadcast at 7.30pm on 31 March 1996.

The National Spokesperson of The National Collective of Rape Crisis and Related

Groups of Aotearoa Inc, Ms Toni Allwood, who was interviewed on the programme,

complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programme breached a number of

broadcasting standards. By omitting her expressions of sympathy for the young man,

she contended that she had not been treated fairly. Further, she argued, some of the

images involved the use of deceptive broadcasting practices.

Ms Woodward complained that the item was unbalanced as it had overlooked the

inadequacies in the police investigation in its determination to focus on and make a

scapegoat of the complainant.

Maintaining that the item had conveyed the main points Ms Allwood had made in the

interview, and that it was appropriate to focus on a manipulative liar who had placed a

young man's future in jeopardy, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaints.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, each complainant referred their complaint to the

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declines 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

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The Programme

A young male student, falsely accused of raping a fellow woman student, was the

subject of an investigation in an item on 60 Minutes broadcast by Television New

Zealand Ltd on 31 March 1996 at 7.30pm. The item examined the efforts made by the

young man and his family to prove that the rape charge was false, and the effect of the

incident on the young man's life. It was revealed that Nick, a warden at one of the

university hostels at the University of Waikato, was accused by a fellow student of

rape. Although Nick protested his innocence, and provided an alibi, he was charged

with the offence. With his family's support, he provided evidence which proved that

he had been falsely accused and the charge was dropped. It was also revealed that the

woman who had accused him was charged with making a false statement, ordered to

pay a fine and sentenced to community service. An investigation into her background

suggested that she had fabricated stories in the past.

One of the interviewees on the programme was Ms Toni Allwood, spokesperson for

The National Collective of Rape Crisis and Related Groups of Aotearoa Inc, who

expressed the view that the investigation amounted to a retrial of the young woman by

the media. Ms Allwood suggested that because the young woman was traumatised by

the "incident she had been mistaken in identifying Nick as the offender, and

emphasised that mistaken identity was not the same as a false accusation of rape. She

also asserted that the suffering of the young man in this case was not comparable to

the trauma of a rape victim.

The Complaints

Ms Toni Allwood complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that because the

programme did not convey her expressions of sympathy for the young man, she was

not dealt with fairly and the item failed to achieve balance. Further, she maintained

that the editing of her interview was a distortion of her overall views and thus

breached standard G19.

She also accused TVNZ of actively misleading the public by setting the scene with

shots of prison, thus giving the impression that Nick had been imprisoned, and by the

use of reconstructions which, she reported, some viewers believed was footage from

police files. She reported that she and her organisation had received a great deal of

negative reaction because the programme portrayed her as indifferent to the plight of

the young man and his family. Furthermore, her organisation, its staff and workers in

other women's groups had been subjected to vitriolic attacks because of what she

called "selective editorial cutting.

Ms Woodward's complaint – that the programme should have focused on the

inadequate police investigation as a contributing factor instead of only emphasising the

young woman's history and her reputation as a "proven manipulative liar – was that

it lacked balance. She argued that in its zeal to vindicate Nick, the item ignored the

effect on the vulnerable and obviously mixed-up young woman, portraying her as an

arch villain, while neglecting to note that ineffective policing had as much to do with

Nick's being charged as did the young woman's accusation. She questioned why the

programme had not highlighted the reasons for the two-day delay which occurred

before the police commenced their investigation into Nick's alibi, arguing that had the

alibi been established it would have been unlikely that Nick would have been charged.

Thus, she maintained, both parties were let down by the tardiness of the police.

In addition, Ms Woodward complained that the item amounted to a retrial by the

media. She argued that the young woman had already been punished and should be

permitted to try to put her life back together again. Instead, the matter had become

public once more and, as well as being the focus of the 60 Minutes item, was the

subject of talkback on radio. Ms Woodward concluded that TVNZ had not acted

responsibly in that it had emphasised the shortcomings of the young woman and not

the inefficiencies of the police force.

TVNZ's Response

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaints under standards G4, G7 and G19

nominated by Ms Allwood and standard G6, nominated by both complainants.

Standards G4, G6 and G7 require broadcasters:

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in

any programme.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

G7  To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice in the

presentation of programmes which takes advantage of the confidence

viewers have in the integrity of broadcasting.

The other standard reads:

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that

the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original

event or overall views expressed.

In its response to Ms Allwood, TVNZ reminded her that she had initiated the contact

with 60 Minutes and was invited to participate in the programme on the basis that she

would present a particular point of view. It also emphasised that the focus of the

story was the young man falsely, and apparently maliciously, accused of rape.

With respect to the contribution from Ms Allwood, TVNZ argued that the extract

broadcast accurately reflected the main points she had made in the interview – first

that the woman had been raped, but that this was a case of mistaken identity, and

secondly that the young man's suffering was not comparable to the trauma suffered

by a rape victim. While it acknowledged that Ms Allwood had expressed sympathy

for the young man, it suggested that it was only in the context of the two points

above. Furthermore, TVNZ argued, Ms Allwood was interviewed not for the purpose

of eliciting sympathy, but to present the view of Rape Crisis. It asked why it was

necessary to show that Ms Allwood had sympathy for the young man when, in the

context of the story, surely that was a given. It considered Ms Allwood had been

treated fairly throughout and declined to uphold her complaint that standard G4 was

breached.

TVNZ then turned to the allegation that editing of certain shots was designed to

mislead viewers. First, it reported, the use of the shot of the prison was to illustrate

the thoughts which were running through Nick's mind during the two and a half

months after he had been falsely accused of the rape. Next, it responded to the

question about the use of the shots of the zipper being undone which, according to Ms

Allwood, some viewers thought was from police files. TVNZ advised that the shot of

the zipper was used to provide a link to the original police photograph of the marks

on the woman's stomach. It denied that the photograph or the link shots evidenced

any prurience or inaccuracy and explained that had the zipper shots not been used, it

would have been difficult for viewers to work out what it was they were being shown.

Referring to the reconstruction of the young woman's interview with police, TVNZ

asserted that it was obvious from the way it was presented that it was not a

reconstruction, since it intermeshed pictures of a woman in blackened profile with

printed extracts from the interview transcript, indicating that the sequence was simply

setting the scene and not that the woman shown was in fact the rape complainant.

TVNZ rejected the complaint that Ms Allwood was treated unfairly in the

programme, pointing out that the main points she wished to make were there – and in

her own words. It also maintained that because the views of Rape Crisis were

presented, the programme was not unbalanced, impartial or unfair.

With respect to Ms Allwood's complaint that her views were distorted by the way

the interview was edited, TVNZ argued that the programme accurately reflected the

points she emphasised during the interview and declined to uphold that aspect of the

complaint. As for the alleged breach of standard G7, TVNZ explained that the

standard usually only applied when some technical trickery was suspected. In this

case, it noted, Ms Allwood's concern was that viewers were misled. TVNZ disagreed

that the imagery used of the prisons, the zipper and the police interview were

misleading.

In its response to Ms Woodward's complaint, TVNZ justified the programme's focus

on the young woman, stressing that it was significant she was shown to be an

inveterate liar – a fact not known at the time of the allegation – because it was her

failure to tell the truth which resulted in Nick being charged. As far as the police

investigation was concerned, TVNZ responded first that the handling of rape

complaints by the police had been tackled in numerous ways before and was outside

the ambit of this item. Further, TVNZ pointed out that the deficiencies in the police

investigation were noted, in particular the failure to check the young woman's

background and to verify Nick's alibi. However, it maintained, those matters were not

what the story was primarily about. Its intention was to highlight the plight of a

young man whose future had been jeopardised by a false accusation of rape and to

show how, with the help of his family, Nick proved that the charge was false.

TVNZ rejected Ms Woodward's contention that the item amounted to a retrial by the

media. It suggested that far from being vulnerable, the young woman was considered

and calculated in telling lies to the authorities and had misled the police, Rape Crisis

and the examining physician, among others. It noted that her name and identity had

been suppressed and that comment on her behalf from Rape Crisis was included. It

did not agree that the programme was unfair to her.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority turns first to the complaint from Ms Allwood, who appeared on the

programme as a spokesperson for Rape Crisis and its affiliated groups. Ms

Allwood's view was that the young woman had been sexually assaulted and was so

traumatised that she made a mistake in identifying her attacker. Subsequently, when it

was learned that she had falsely accused Nick, she was sentenced to 150 hours of

community service and fined $5000 – and thus had paid her debt.

The Authority understands that Ms Allwood's complaint was that she was not

represented fairly because her comments were edited to remove her expressions of

sympathy for Nick. The Authority accepts that Ms Allwood was presented as a

strong advocate for the young woman, and that she believed that "Wendy had been

so traumatised by the alleged attack that she had mistaken the identity of her attacker.

She also expressed the view that the young woman had already been punished

sufficiently, adding that she was concerned about the effects on her health of a second

trial by media, especially if she was able to be identified.

The Authority also notes that when Ms Allwood took the view that a rape had

occurred but Nick was mistakenly identified, it was suggested by the reporter that this

was another fabrication by the young woman and was the "latest version of the

story, which had been accepted as true by Rape Crisis. The Authority notes that this

interpretation of events differed from the version given by the young woman to the

police when she admitted that not only had she falsely accused Nick but also that no

sexual assault had taken place. In that context, Ms Allwood was portrayed as a

powerful advocate for the young woman. The Authority sees her role in the

programme as presenting the viewpoint of the woman – and indeed other women who

have been victims of sexual assault – and of educating the public about how the trauma

of sexual assault can result in victims being mistaken in identifying their attackers.

Whether there was a sexual assault on this occasion was not relevant – and not

investigated – since the focus was on the false accusation of Nick and the effect on him

and his family.

The Authority understands why Ms Allwood would have preferred for her expression

of sympathy for Nick to have been included in the programme. However it does not

agree that her views were misrepresented simply because she was not shown

conveying her sympathy for Nick and his family. In the Authority's view, her role in

the programme was to provide support for the young woman – which she did very

powerfully – and to provide a perspective about the role of Rape Crisis. It concludes

that she was treated fairly and that standard G4 was not contravened.

Turning to the editing techniques used to illustrate aspects of the story – the shots of

the prison, the shots of the woman's injuries and the reconstruction of the police

interview – the Authority accepts that those devices are standard practice in compiling

documentaries and are used to represent aspects of the story in which visual detail is

significant. It does not consider the techniques were likely to have misled viewers or

that they distorted the truth. Accordingly it declines to uphold the complaint that

standards G7 and G19 were breached.

Next, the Authority considers the complaint that because the item failed to focus on

the inadequacy of the police investigation, the item lacked balance. The Authority

acknowledges that the ineffective police investigation was a factor in the story, but it

recognises that the focus on this occasion was the impact on Nick and his family of

the false accusation of rape. It was significant that the main reason he was charged

was because Wendy's story was so totally plausible, rather than the failure of the

police to investigate the allegations and check Nick's alibi. As a result of the

resourcefulness of his family and friends, Nick was able to establish his alibi as well as

to cast doubt on the veracity of Wendy's story. The Authority notes that although

questions were asked in the programme as to why the police had laid charges without

checking Nick's alibi and verifying the complainant's story, and why Nick and his

parents were forced to initiate the investigation themselves, it was outside the ambit of

the programme to investigate those matters further. It considers the programme,

which focused on Nick and his family, was balanced by comments from the Rape

Crisis spokesperson who explained the circumstances from the position of the young

woman and emphasised that she had already paid her debt for her mistake. The

Authority declines to uphold the complaints that the item lacked balance.

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

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
29 August 1996

Appendix I

The National Collective of Rape Crisis and Related Groups of Aotearoa Inc.'s

Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 26 April 1996

On behalf of the above group, the National Spokesperson, Toni Allwood, complained

to Television New Zealand Ltd about a 60 Minutes item titled "Cry Rape broadcast

on TV One at 7.30pm on 31 March 1996. She alleged that the broadcast had breached

standards G4, G6, G7 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Ms Allwood explained that she had been interviewed for the item which focussed on

the situation of a young male student wrongly accused of rape by a female fellow

student - who had subsequently been found guilty of making a false statement. Ms

Allwood wrote:

The tenor of my comments were sympathy for and condemnation of a man '

being falsely accused of rape; a belief that mistaken identity was not the same

as a false allegation; an explanation of how a traumatised teenager could make

such a mistake, the pressures of victims of sexual assault to identify their

attacker and their need to be believed; my concerns that the sole focus of

anger was on a teenage victim when there was a series of mistakes that led to

this tragedy, that W had already been punished and that the 60 Minutes

programme was shaping up as a second trial (by media); my anxiety that her

safety could be jeopardised should the intended nationwide identification of

her take place.

However, she stressed, her views on the first point - sympathy for the young man -

had not been shown. She stated that she had expressed her dismay that any male

could be falsely accused of rape, and that it was fortunate for him that his family was

loyal and resourceful. She pointed out that she had made this point more than once.

She alleged that, by editing out all her expressions of sympathy, TVNZ had not dealt

with her fairly and justly, had been unbalanced and unfair, and had distorted her views

in the editing process. She emphasised:

My representation as a cold uncaring person, indifferent to the plight of Nick

or his family has resulted in a flood of hostility both to me personally and via

threats to cancel financial support, to the national organisation of Rape Crisis.

Explaining her allegation of a breach of standard G7, Ms Allwood maintained first that

shots of prison had misled people to believe that Nick had been jailed, secondly, a

reconstruction of Wendy's interrogation misled people to believe that they were

witnessing the real thing, and thirdly, that shots of a woman undoing her zip to show

an unblemished abdomen were also authentic. She asserted that these constituted

deceptive broadcasting practices.

In conclusion, she noted that while she had been happy about what she had said in the

interview, she had been cynical about what "creative cutting would do to her

statements. Seeing the result, she knew that while she could live with the editing:

What I find much harder to accept is that because of selective editorial cutting

Rape Crisis as a national organisation has been subject to resulting extreme

vitriolic attacks and that these have had to be endured not only by our paid and

unpaid workers around the country, but also by women who work for other

community groups which are quite independent of Rape Crisis.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 27 May 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards - G4, G6, G7 and G19 -

TVNZ noted nevertheless that it believed that Ms Allwood's prime concern was that

she had been misrepresented.

In the recollection of the crew present during the interview, it stated, the two main

points Ms Allwood had emphasised were that Rape Crisis believed that this was a

case of mistaken identity as distinct from a false accusation of rape, and that the

young man's suffering in this case was in no way comparable with the trauma suffered

by a rape victim. It was acknowledged that Ms Allwood did express sympathy for

the young man, but the crew stressed that it was always in the context of either of her

two main points.

Observing that it was true that all sympathetic statements had been cut, TVNZ

reported that Ms Allwood had only referred to Nick as "that young man, and such

statements only amounted to three and a half sentences in a 22 minute interview.

TVNZ said that it had seemed sensible to choose an excerpt from the interview in

which the points which Ms Allwood had made were most succinctly put. It also

explained:

You were interviewed, not for the purpose of eliciting from you a statement of

sympathy, but to provide you with an opportunity to spell out the more

important points that you as a representative of Rape Crisis, wished to make.

As such, TVNZ believed that this aim was achieved. It also considered that the views

included were those that Ms Allwood really wanted to get across to viewers. It noted:

In the context of these particular circumstances sympathy for Nick's

predicament was surely a "given?

Turning to Ms Allwood's concerns about the imagery used in the programme, TVNZ

responded point by point. As for the images of a prison, it argued that they were not

inappropriate as, for two and a half months, Nick had faced the possibility of 10 years

in prison. In regards to the shot involving the zipper, TVNZ contended that this had

been necessary to link the preceding material with the original police photos of

"Wendy's stomach. Finally, it noted that it did not believe that it needed to label the

interview as a reconstruction as the background visuals were simply "setting the

scene for the printed extracts from an interview transcript.

TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint

Rape Crisis's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 18 June 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Ms Allwood on behalf of the Collective referred

the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Maintaining that the context of her participation was important, Ms Allwood

explained that she had been asked to get involved by a number of people who were

concerned about Wendy's safety should 60 Minutes identify her. Her family, the

Rape Crisis counsellor, and the police officer involved had all agreed that the victim

might try to commit suicide.

Pointing out that when she was interviewed an interim injunction had been taken out

against TVNZ, she suggested that the line of questioning beginning with "Why has a

court injunction been taken out against TVNZ to prevent us from naming Wendy?

was hostile and antagonistic.

She stressed that she was particularly conscious of potential damage to the reputation

of Rape Crisis every time she did media work. She commented that for that reason she

had wished to convey a balanced perspective of sympathy for Nick and concern

regarding TVNZ's proposed treatment of Wendy. She emphasised:

Because it was crucial that my condemnation of the intended actions of 60

Minutes should not be misinterpreted by viewers as an indifference to the

plight of Nick and his family, I repeatedly expressed my sympathy --- four

times in all.

That I was misrepresented was demonstrated by the fact that in the frenzy of

public antagonism that followed the screening of 60 Minutes, I successfully

defused every hostile call by simply outlining what I did say in the unedited

interview.

Ms Allwood believed that as TVNZ had been forbidden to name Wendy, it had

attempted to use Rape Crisis and her as a scapegoat. She enclosed a copy of a Sunday

Star-Times advertisement with a bold headline of "HE's AT THE CENTRE OF A

RAPE CRISIS. She also pointed out that the Executive Producer of 60 Minutes had

deliberately misrepresented her on Auckland's Newstalk ZB, stating that she had not

expressed sympathy for Nick or his family and that she wanted to stop the entire

programme. She enclosed a fax which she had sent to the director of the item on 1

March which was contradictory to all these claims.

She concluded:

The negative repercussions of the 60 Minutes programme have been

considerable and in my opinion, undeserved. For example they extended

beyond myself and Rape Crisis to the Auckland Help Foundation. They

included financial losses for local Rape Crisis groups who had to cancel their

street appeals during our 1996 Rape Awareness Week (9-12 April) because

they had concerns about their safety in view of the continuing public hostility.

TVNZ's Reply to the Authority - 27 June 1996

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ pointed out first that while Ms Allwood had

claimed that she had been subjected to a "hostile and antagonistic line of questioning,

she had stated in her original complaint that she had been happy with what she had

said in the interview. TVNZ acknowledged that the interview was "hard-hitting as a

current affairs interview should be, but contended that Ms Allwood, as an

experienced interview subject, would not have been surprised. It explained that the

reporter frequently stopped the interview to check the quality of Ms Allwood's

responses.

TVNZ observed that the programme focused on the ordeal of a young man falsely

accused of rape, rather than an wider ideological debate on rape. The latter approach

would have been inappropriate in the context. It recalled that the interview had in fact

been initiated by Ms Allwood, and that she had been informed that it would be

necessary to address the essential points of the story.

TVNZ repeated that Ms Allwood had never referred to Nick by name, but always as

"that young man. It wrote:

In editing the interview the priority was to condense from it the more

important points that Rape Crisis wished to make - first that Rape Crisis

believed a rape had occurred but that this was a case of mistaken identity, and

second that the young man's trauma could not be compared with that suffered

by a rape victim.

It suggested that it was unnecessary to show Ms Allwood's sympathy for Nick as it

was surely a "given. In conclusion, TVNZ noted that Ms Allwood's interview was

just one aspect in a story about a young man's fearful experience after being falsely

and apparently maliciously accused of rape.

Rape CrisisÕ Final Comment - 16 July 1996

On behalf of Rape Crisis, Ms Allwood made five points in her final comment.

First, while pleased when interviewed that she had not responded either aggressively

or defensively, she had qualified her answer at the time and mentioned her concern

about possible "creative cutting. On viewing the item, "I was not happy.

Secondly, while she agreed that Nick's story was worth telling, she was concerned

that it should not be at the cost of further harm to Wendy. Her concern was justified

given TVNZ's approach to her when she was interviewed and, she added:

The tone of the question indicated to me that TVNZ was angry. These points

will be made clear if the Broadcasting Standards Authority is able to see a VHS

copy of my original interview as well as the item screened on 31 March 1996.

Next, she explained that she had deliberately avoided mentioning either Nick or Wendy

by name given the court proceedings relating to Wendy's name suppression, and

thought it was illogical for TVNZ to criticise her for doing so.

As the fourth point, she maintained that the removal of her expressions of sympathy

for Nick added to the item's tone of hostility.

Finally, she wrote:

A very important task for Rape Crisis in every interview is to show that our

expertise on rape and sexual abuse is tempered by balance and fairness, indeed

our credibility depends on it. In its distorted portrayal of me the 60 Minutes

"Cry Rape item not only misrepresented my views but also unfairly

undermined the reputation and credibility of myself and Rape Crisis.

Appendix II

Ms Woodward's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 2 April 1996

Ruby Woodward of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about a 60

Minutes episode titled "Cry Rape broadcast on TV One at 7.30pm on 31 March

1996. She alleged that the broadcast was unbalanced.

Ms Woodward stated:

As presented by Janet McIntyre, it would appear that this whole sorry event

occurred because a young girl (17 or 18?) falsely accused a young man of

rape. The story was structured around a young girl's actions and attempts to

counter them by a young man's family.

She continued by pointing out that there was little mention of the police investigation

and the impact of its conclusions. She suggested that more emphasis should have been

placed on the point that the police apparently did not take the girl's character into

account, and that the young man's alibi was not adequately investigated and

substantiated until some time after he had been charged.

She contended that the emphasis should have been on shoddy police work, police

underfunding, or poor police training, rather than on an obviously vulnerable and

disturbed teenage girl. She questioned whether the focus of the programme had been

determined solely by the quest for ratings.

She concluded:

What I do know, however, is that if a wider focus had been chosen for its

exposition, the programme would not have been presented as lacking balance

as it did.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 24 May 1996

TVNZ assessed the complaint in the context of standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

Suggesting that while Ms Woodward might feel genuine compassion for the young

woman involved, "Wendy was, in TVNZ's opinion, "a proven manipulative liar and

had placed a young man in jeopardy by a prolonged refusal to tell the truth. It was

also noted that "Wendy's inclination to lie was not known to the authorities when

the allegation was made.

Dealing with the suggestion that the focus of the programme should have been on the

police, TVNZ made two points:

First the police's handling of rape complaints has been tackled in numerous

ways before and was outside the ambit of this 60 Minutes investigation.

Secondly, the programme did not ignore the apparently ill-judged police work.

Their failure to check the young woman's background and exaggerated stories

was described, as was their failure to verify Nick's alibi.

TVNZ pointed out that a spokesperson for Rape Crisis had suggested that this was

simply a retrial by media and that, in her view, the damage done to the victim in this

case could not be compared to the trauma suffered by a rape victim. TVNZ noted,

however, that these points were not central to the story. The central points were:

Its intention was to point to the plight of a young man whose life may have

been shattered by a false accusation of rape. Even now, although the

complainant has acknowledged the complaint was false, the accusation hangs

over him. It was a story about a family coming together to fight a case of

injustice that even their lawyer thought was hopeless.

In declining to uphold the complaint TVNZ stressed that "Wendy was not

vulnerable, but had been, in fact, considered and calculating in telling her lies to the

authorities. It also stressed that the item was a fair description of what the young man

had been through, that it had included a comment from Rape Crisis and that it (TVNZ)

had been prevented from naming "Wendy by a court injunction.

Ms Woodward's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20 June

1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Ms Woodward referred the complaint to the

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

After pointing out that the Executive Producer of 60 Minutes had been quoted in the

Listener as saying that the programme lives or dies by the ratings, Ms Woodward

expressed a suspicion that the quest for ratings had had a particularly important

aspect of this programme. She then made the following points:

1. If Wendy was a "proven manipulative liar, that showed that she had an

emotionally or mentally vulnerable state of mind and that if that was "proven, then

the police should have found this out. The absence of focus on these two matters in

the item, she wrote, indicated a complete lack of balance.

2. That Wendy was a "proven liar was significant. As the police didnÕt take this

into account until after charging Nick, there was a fine balance between poor policing

and the accusation leading to Nick being charged. However, the programme simply

focussed on Wendy's actions.

3. The fact that there was a two day delay between the time when Nick was

charged and when the police began to investigate his alibi was only briefly alluded to.

She made a comparison to a burglary, in which she suggested the police could not

charge someone until they had confirmed that an offence occurred. She pointed out

that this point was not made for the viewers.

4. The professional negligence of the police was not depicted in remotely the

same "lurid manner as Wendy's actions had been approached.

5. Ms Woodward considered that 60 Minutes was so intent on vindicating Nick

that it had been prepared to shatter the life of Wendy - a person who was vulnerable

and obviously mixed up. She alleged:

From the outset, it was obvious that the ambit of this item was the portrayal

of a young-woman as an arch-villain. No matter that poor policing had as much

to do as with Nick being charged with rape as Wendy's accusation; no matter

that the girl was obviously very mixed up, already tried and punished in court

for her behaviour and now trying to put this episode behind her - the focus of

the programme remained firmly fixed on Wendy.

6. Ms Woodward noted that in contesting her complaint, TVNZ had not

acknowledged the court injunction, which it had contested.

7. Presumably the injunction acknowledged that young people, such as Wendy,

make mistakes, but nevertheless that they should be allowed to get on with their lives.

8. Despite the injunction, the programme however made her name quite clear, by

using beeps to cover her full name and blocking her face in a photograph taken with

other students. Ms Woodward pointed out that other students could have recognised

her in the photo.

9. Ms Woodward argued that 60 Minutes succeeded at putting Wendy on trial

again, this time in the sitting rooms of the ordinary New Zealand citizen.

10. She concluded:

In this way, and by placing less emphasis on the inefficiencies of the police

force, I believe TVNZ, and 60 Minutes failed to act responsibly in that the item

entitled "Cry Rape lacked balance and fairness in the treatment of a

controversial issue.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 27 June 1996

TVNZ noted that Ms Woodward's quote about 60 Minutes living or dying by the

ratings was selective, but irrelevant as the complaint should be focussed on the

programme.

TVNZ suggested that it was ironic that Ms Woodward was accusing it of being

unbalanced as she had not expressed any sympathy for the young man involved, either

in her original complaint or in the referral to the Authority.

TVNZ pointed out that it was irrelevant that it had not mentioned the injunction in

dealing with her complaint, as it had no bearing on any of the points she made. It was

also claimed that her interpretation of the order was subjective and irrelevant.

Ms Woodward's Final Comment - 6 July 1996

In her comment, Ms Woodward expressed surprise at TVNZ's "ad hominem

comment. She "heartily empathised with the young man and his family, but her

complaint had focussed on the item's alleged lack of balance.

The crux of the complaint, she reiterated, was the item's lack of balance in not dealing

with bad policing. Without police negligence, she added, the young man would not

have been put in the dreadful position explored in the item.

Her reference to the injunction, she wrote, was to explain what she saw as the item's

focus on Wendy.

Ms Woodward concluded by referring again to the Listener article which reported that

60 Minutes lived or died by its ratings.