BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Johnny Young was killed in a motorcycle accident at about 12.30pm on 9 June 1996.

A TV3 camera crew was on the site and the death was reported in an item on 3

National News broadcast at 6.00pm that evening. The dead cyclist's name was not

mentioned and the item included a brief shot of two very concerned women, both of

whom were obviously dressed for travelling on a motorbike.

Mr Conway, Mr Young's brother-in-law, complained to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority that the coverage at 6.00pm, by showing the women, breached the family's

privacy. One of the women shown was his sister, the late Mr Young's wife, and the

other woman was a friend who was the partner of another motorcyclist with whom

they had been travelling at the time. The Police had informed him that it was not

intended to release the dead man's name until Mr Young's family had been advised.

That task was not completed until 9.25pm that evening.

Mr Conway also complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the item breached

broadcasting standards in that it had caused unnecessary alarm or distress to Mr

Young's family and friends and to the family of the other motorcyclist, and had

involved intrusion in both women's distress.

Explaining that the privacy principles issued by the Authority did not apply to the

situation complained about as it occurred in a public place, TV3 declined to uphold the

privacy complaint. As the item dealt with a legitimate news story and the filming had

been restrained, TV3 said that the standards had not been breached.

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision on the standards complaint, Mr Conway referred it

to the 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.

Road accidents were the topic of an item on 3 National News broadcast at 6.00pm on

9 June. After showing the vehicles involved in a crash near Hamilton, the item referred

to an accident near Wellington in which a motor cyclist had been killed. Scenes of the

accident were shown and the item concluded with a shot of two women dressed for

motorcycle riding apprehensively, watching the scene.

Mr Conway complained to the Authority that the visual of the women invaded his

family's privacy, and to TV3 that the shot caused unnecessary panic and alarm, and

involved unnecessary intrusion on the women's grief. He alleged that the item

breached s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 which requires broadcasters to

maintain standards consistent with the privacy of an individual, and standards G16

and G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The standards read:

G16 News, current affairs and documentaries should not be presented in such a

way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

G17 Unnecessary intrusion in the grief and distress of victims and their families

or friends must be avoided. Funeral coverage should reflect sensitivity and

understanding for the feelings and privacy of the bereaved.

Broadcasters must avoid causing unwarranted distress by showing library

tape of bodies or human remains which could cause distress to surviving

family members. Where possible, family members should be consulted

before the material is used. This standard is not intended to prevent the

use of material which adds significantly to public understanding of an issue

which is in the public arena and interest.

Mr Conway explained that his brother-in-law (Johnny Young) was the motorcyclist

killed in the accident portrayed. His brother-in-law had been accompanied by his wife

(Mr Conway's sister) and another couple also on a motorbike. The two women were

shown in the item. After the accident, Mr Conway had been involved in advising Mr

Young's family of the death. The Police had said that they would not release his name

to the media until that task was finished which, Mr Conway said, was completed at

about 9.30pm.

Because his sister was recognisable from the item which was broadcast some three

hours before all the family were informed of the death, Mr Conway complained that

the item breached the family's privacy. He also argued that the item had caused

unnecessary panic and alarm because, by showing both women, it did not distinguish

which partner had been killed. Finally, as the women were filmed despite their strong

request to the contrary, the item not only again invaded their privacy, but was also an

unnecessary intrusion into their grief and distress.

While expressing sympathy for the complainant and his family, TV3 declined to

uphold any aspect of the complaint.

As for the privacy concerns, it noted that the item did not disclose private facts and

said that privacy principles (iii) and (vi) were relevant. They read:

iii) There is a separate ground for a complaint, in addition to a complaint for

the public disclosure of private and public facts, in factual situations

involving the intentional interference (in the nature of prying) with an

individual's interest in solitude or seclusion. The intrusion must be

offensive to the ordinary person but an individual's interest in solitude or

seclusion does not provide the basis for a privacy action for an individual

to complain about being observed or followed or photographed in a public

place.

vi) Discussing the matter in the 'public interest', defined as of legitimate

concern or interest to the public, is a defence to an individual's claim for

privacy.

TV3 maintained that the standard relating to the unwelcome invasion of an individual's

privacy (principle (iii)) had not been contravened as, first, the filming had been of

events in a public place, and secondly, road accidents were a matter of public interest

so the overriding defence in principle (vi) applied.

As for the requirement in standard G16 not to cause unnecessary panic or alarm, TV3

again referred to the legitimate public interest in road accidents. It acknowledged that

the news coverage of tragic or fatal accidents could cause distress to the bereaved.

However, taking into account its obligation to report news, it did not believe that any

distress caused by reporting the accident was unnecessary.

Standard G17 requires that unnecessary intrusion in the distress of victims and their

families must be avoided. With reference to the filming of the women, TV3

acknowledged that a person at the scene – not the women – had asked the cameraman

to stop filming. The cameraman had replied that he was just doing his job and when

Mr Conway's sister was advised by the ambulanceman that her husband had died, the

cameraman turned away. TV3 wrote:

Inquiries of the reporter and cameraman indicate they exercised restraint during

video taping images of the accident. In fact the reporter remained in the camera

vehicle during most of the video taping. Having said that, the TV3 Complaints

Committee is not in a position to verify what was or was not said at the time of

the incident.

In response to this explanation, Mr Conway considered TV3's attitude to be both

callous and cynical, and to reflect either a 'vulture like style of reporting' or to

display a 'pack of sad blood sucking parasites'. Expressing the hope that the people

at TV3 never had to suffer the fate experienced by his sister, he wrote:

By identifying my sister and her friend on TV you caused unnecessary distress

to family and friends who were unaware of what had happened. There is

absolutely no way you can justify the necessity of identifying these two people

before we had confirmed to the police that we had notified next of kin.

In view of the tragic bereavement suffered by Mr Conway, his sister and her late

husband's family, the Authority extends its sympathy to them. Nevertheless, it is

unable to conclude that the broadcast of the item involved a breach of any broadcasting

standards.

The item informed the viewer that an unnamed motorcyclist had been killed in a road

accident near Wellington. It was reasonable to assume that the two unnamed but

identifiable women shown wearing leathers were involved in some way, possibly as

bystanders or witnesses.

The Police had undertaken to Mr Conway not to release the name of the dead

motorcyclist until all the family were informed. That did not occur until about

9.30pm. Thus a viewer who recognised the women but who had not been informed of

the details could well surmise and be very concerned, that either Johnny Young or his

friend (Stewart Neville) had been killed in the accident reported in the item.

By way of explanation, the Authority notes that the media are not reliant on the

release of information by the Police or other similar authorities, or obliged to comply

with police directives about information which has been gathered. By the same token,

there are legal provisions (eg the possibility of contempt of court) and conventions (eg

releasing the names of the accident victims), when it is in the interest of both the media

and the police to co-operate.

The item to which the complaint related disclosed the possible identity of the dead

motorcyclist to people who recognised either of the women. Privacy principle (iii) is

concerned with filming a person without that person's knowledge. However, it does

not apply when the filming occurs in a public place as occurred on this occasion.

Moreover, while members of the public may object to the filming which occurs in a

private place, they do not have the power to order that it stop.

Road accidents are matters of public interest, as is apparent in the item under

discussion, and thus the broadcast of the material which allowed the women to be

identified is not a breach of the privacy principles. While not a breach of privacy,

however, the Authority questions whether the editing of the item, no doubt in an

effort to provide a human face to the story, showed sufficient sensitivity to the

people involved.

Turning to standard G16, the Authority accepts that the news item could have caused

alarm to the families of both Johnny Young and Stewart Neville. However, in view of

the not unusual nature of the matter dealt with – a road accident – it does not believe

that the alarm caused was unnecessary. Nor was the alarm caused to the population at

large, or a significant section of the population.

Visuals which involve unnecessary intrusion in the grief or distress of victims are

matters about which the Authority believes the public is very concerned. They can be

visuals which are not only intrusive but also very distressing to view. There is a line

between pictures which show the onlooker's concern, and those which intrude into the

onlooker's grief. The Authority accepts that the item which was screened on this

occasion showed the two women as concerned onlookers. It did not show them as

distressed onlookers. As it had not crossed the line from what is acceptable to what is

unacceptable, the Authority does not believe that standard G17 was contravened.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 September 1996

Appendix I

Mr Conway's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - Received

25 June 1996

Steve Conway of Wellington complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority under s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that an item broadcast on 3

National News between 6.00 - 6.30pm on 9 June 1996 breached the privacy of his and

his brother-in-law's families.

Mr Conway reported that his brother-in-law, Johnny Young, was killed in a

motorcycle accident about 12.30pm on 9 June. A TV3 camera crew was on site and

filmed his sister, Helen Young, and a riding companion Diane Foley. He continued:

My sister, obviously greatly distressed at the death of her husband, advised the

cameraman in no uncertain terms that she did not want to be filmed, the

cameraman ignored this and continued filming. After we had got my sister home

from the hospital and broke the news about Johnny to her two children, which

as you can imagine was utterly heartrending for all concerned, we were advised

by the police that they would like us to ring them and let them know when the

next of kin had been advised so that they could release Johnny's name to the

media. Unfortunately it being a very pleasant day weather wise many of the

immediate next of kin were out and we did not finish contacting them until

9.25pm that evening. It was then that I advised the police that they could

release Johnny's name.

However, immediately after the 6.00pm news on TV3, Mr Conway reported, he had

received calls from distressed family and friends who had seen an item which reported

the death of a motorcyclist and had shown Helen and Diane. Neither Johnny nor

Diane's partner, Stewart Neville, were visible and it was obvious that either Johnny or

Stewart had been killed. He added:

We accordingly received many calls from people trying to find out who had been

killed before we had even advised all of John's immediate family. Given that an

estimated 800 to 1,000 people attended John's funeral if only five percent of

these saw the news item a possible 40 odd people may well have inadvertently

contacted John's parents or other next of kin before we had let them know

personally.

He explained that John's parents were both in their 80s and suffered from heart

conditions and that he had asked one of John's sisters to inform them of his death

shortly before the broadcast of the news item, Mr Conway pointed out that Stewart's

friends and family had also been put under unwarranted stress. He wrote:

The insensitivity of TV3 in showing recognisable footage of both Helen and

Diane at the accident site beggars the imagination. The fact that they did not

broadcast names is no consolation to you when the face of somebody you know,

who is in obvious distress, is shown in conjunction with the report. It does not

require genius to put two and two together to realise that either Johnny or

Stewart had been killed.

In relation to the invasion of privacy complaint, Mr Conway concluded:

... it seems to me a definite cynical invasion of privacy to agree not to release the

name of a deceased person while at the same time broadcasting recognisable

footage of the companions of the deceased, ie his wife and a friend, a face is more

recognisable that a name. There does not seem any valid reason under the

heading of 'in the public interest' for this aspect of the broadcast by TV3.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 30 July 1996

Advising the Authority that the complaint had been assessed under privacy principles

(iii) and (vi), TV3 maintained that the former was in fact inapplicable. Principle (iii)

states that the rules about prying do not apply when to a person being observed in a

public place - as had occurred on this occasion.

Because the traffic accident in which Mr Young was killed was one of two fatal traffic

accidents being reported, TV3 argued that public interest was the dominant

consideration. It concluded:

The TV3 Complaints Committee has sympathy for the loss suffered by Mr

Conway and his family and regrets any pain caused by the broadcast. However,

showing images of people involved in accidents or disasters is a part of the news

gathering process. It is simply unrealistic to withhold these images to avoid any

and every possibility of those shown being recognised by a family member or

friend.

Mr Conway's Final Comment - 2 August 1996

Mr Conway explained that he objected to the screening of footage which identified his

sister and her friend before next of kin had been notified. That, he wrote, invaded the

families' privacy. He added:

TV3 makes all sorts of statements about public interest and road safety concerns

but these are irrelevant to the point at issue. Neither public interest or road

safety were served by showing the footage of Helen or Diane, the showing of

this footage as I have said could have waited until next of kin had been informed

and the news coverage would not have suffered in any way.

Appendix II

Mr Conway's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - June 1996

Steve Conway of Wellington, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority,

complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about an item broadcast on 3 National News

between 6.00 - 6.30pm on Sunday 9 June 1996.

Referring to the facts outlined in Appendix I, Mr Conway alleged breaches of

standards G16 and G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The item,

he wrote, caused unnecessary distress to Johnny Young's family and friends, Stewart

Neville's family and friends, and intruded on the grief of Helen and Diane. Further, it

would have alarmed those who knew them.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 30 July 1996

Expressing its sympathy for the family and friends of the deceased motorcyclist, TV3

assessed the complaint under standards G16 and G17 of the Television Codes.

Dealing first with standard G16, TV3 said that there was a legitimate public interest in

fatal road accidents. Although broadcasts of such items were capable of causing

distress, it did not accept that the resulting distress would be unnecessary. It wrote:

The TV3 Complaints Committee, as does 3 National News, considers accurate

reporting of road fatalities constructively heightens public awareness of road

safety.

As for standard G17, TV3 pointed first to the grief suffered as a result of the death

and, secondly, to the duty of a news service to report events of public interest,

commenting:

What happened in those moments after the death of Anthony was shockingly

and publicly obvious. While having the utmost sympathy for the family and

friends of Anthony [sic] the fact remains his death occurred on New Zealand

roads and road deaths are of a legitimate public concern. As with almost all road

deaths the accident occurred on a public highway. The images shown on 3

National News reflected what occurred in a public place.

TV3 denied that the camera man was asked by Mr Conway's sister to desist from

filming. Rather, when he was nearly finished, he was asked by an adult male to stop

filming. TV3 said that the cameraman replied that he was just doing his job and, TV3

continued:

In fact, when Helen was advised by the ambulance officer that her husband had

died the cameraman of his own volition turned to give some degree of privacy.

He did not record the moment. Inquiries of the reporter and the cameraman

indicate they exercised restraint during video taping images of the accident. In

fact the reporter remained in the camera vehicle during most of the video taping.

Having said that, the TV3 Complaints Committee is not in a position to verify

what was or was not said at the time of the incident.

Explaining that suffering and death were often aspects of news items, TV3 said

coverage of such events were acceptable when within the limits of the Codes.

Declining to uphold the complaint, it concluded:

The images used in the item did not show close up shots of the deceased or of

those directly involved. Gratuitous zooms and lingering images of grief and

distress were avoided.

Mr Conway's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 7 August

1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response as he believed that it side-stepped the issues raised,

Mr Conway referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

As for standard G16, Mr Conway agreed that in normal circumstances the report of a

person's death in an accident would not breach the standards. However, the situation

was different on this occasion.

First, the death of a motorcyclist who was not identified, was reported. Pictures of

his sister and her friend were shown which implied that either John or Stewart were

killed. He added:

This caused unnecessary distress and alarm to Diana and Stewart's family and

friends because they did not know whether John or Stewart had been killed and

neither Stewart or Diana were accessible as they were comforting Helen in her

distress.

Secondly, this also caused unnecessary distress and alarm to Helen's family and

friends whom we had not yet notified, for exactly the same reasons.

Additionally, it caused Helen unnecessary distress to know that TV3 was

broadcasting footage of her and Diana before we had notified next of kin.

With regard to standard G17, Mr Conway argued that the item intruded on his sister's

grief by showing pictures of her. He maintained:

There was no need for them to film my sister in her moment of loss, and they

were told in no uncertain terms by her not to do so. In the public interest it was

sufficient for TV3 to report the accident, it was gratuitous for them to film my

sister in such a way as to identify her and to show her obvious distress.

Mr Conway disputed TV3's arguments that it avoided gratuitous images of grief. The

item was about an accident and thus any footage of his sister's grief was gratuitous.

He considered:

I find their letter offensive and condescending in tone and evasive in answer.

They have said nothing that convinces me that they acted appropriately. I

therefore ask you to look into the matter further.

Mr Conway enclosed a copy of a letter he had sent to TV3 (dated 1 August) in which

he expressed strong dismay at its response to his complaints. In that letter he wrote:

In conclusion you are a pack of bloodsucking parasites whose predictable

response has only sharpened my resolve to pursue this matter further with the

broadcasting standards authority. May you all suffer from some disaster which

some even more predatory bastards than yourselves will profit from and may

you languish in the depths of despair, sorrow and anguish from your being used

in such a way.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 29 August 1996

While expressing sympathy for Mr Conway and his brother-in-law's family, TV3's

Managing Director did not accept that the broadcast breached the standards. He

wrote:

3 National News has to cover many tragic and fatal accidents in the course of

reporting news. Each of those items has the potential of causing some distress

for the bereaved. While the reporting of this accident clearly caused distress for

Mr Conway and members of his family, TV3 has an obligation to report events

it considers newsworthy.

The letter referred to the crash of the Auckland Police helicopter as an example of

screening events very soon after they occurred, and concluded:

The last thing TV3 and 3 National News would wish is to cause unnecessary

suffering. In this case, a tragic but newsworthy event was reported within the

requirements of the Broadcasting Act and the Codes of Broadcasting Practice.

I once again extend our condolences to Mr Conway and his family but must

agree with the findings of the TV3 Complaints Committee regarding this matter.

Mr Conway's Final Comment - 3 September 1996

Because TV3 seemed to miss the point of the complaint, Mr Conway repeated that he

did not object to TV3 reporting the death, but that pictures of Johnny Young's wife

(Diana) had been shown before all the next of kin had been advised.

Questioning the ability of TV3 to asses newsworthiness in view of some items

included in the news and pointing out that it was obliged to comply with broadcasting

standards, he argued:

There was no compulsion, compunction, obligation b or necessity for them to

reveal the identity of Helen and Diana before we had notified next of kin.