BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Epitaph was broadcast by TV2 at 7.30pm on 10 October 1996 as a pilot to a possible

series which would reveal some of the stories to be found behind the headstones in

various New Zealand cemeteries. One item on Epitaph referred to Patrick Henry Shine

who was interred in West Auckland in 1939, but whose body was taken by a pair of

body-snatchers intent on faking the death of one of them.

Mrs Baker, granddaughter of Mr Shine, complained to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority that the item breached her privacy as her permission had not been obtained

for the disclosure of the material contained in the broadcast. She also complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd that the item was in bad taste in disclosing some of the

indignities inflicted on her grandfather's body.

Maintaining that the events had been described in a straightforward manner and that a

grandson of Mr Shine had helped in the preparation of the item, TVNZ declined to

uphold the complaint alleging a breach of the standard requiring good taste.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mrs Baker referred the standards 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.

Epitaph was the name of a programme which looked at some gravestones in a number

of cemeteries and explored the stories behind them. The story behind the headstone

for Patrick Henry Shine in the Waikumete Cemetery, as the item reported, is explained

in the monthly guided tour through the cemetery. The programme then told the story

showing some of the places involved and using visual re-enactments as well.

Shortly after his burial in 1939, the item reported, the body of Patrick Henry Shine

was disinterred by two body snatchers who used it in an attempt to fake the death of

one of them for insurance purposes. The failure of the plot, their eventual

imprisonment, and the burial again of the deceased were recalled. The programme also

reported that the descendants of the deceased referred to in the programme had been

spoken to.

Mrs Baker complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the item had

breached her privacy and that of her children who were the late Mr Shine's only direct

descendants. They had not been approached by TVNZ. Pointing out to TVNZ that

she had suffered considerable distress as her grandfather's death had been presented as

a matter of entertainment, she also alleged that the item had been in poor taste in view

of the references to the mutilations which had been inflicted on his body.

The Authority assessed the privacy complaint under s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act

1989 which requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of

the individual. The other complaint was assessed by TVNZ under standard G2 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste

in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any

language or behaviour occurs.

Pointing out that the events dealt with during the programme were recounted on the

monthly tour of the Waikumete Cemetery and thus were not private, TVNZ explained

that it had spoken to a Mr John Shine before the item was broadcast. Mr John Shine,

it continued, was a grandson of the late Patrick Henry Shine and had endorsed

TVNZ's efforts and had provided information for the programme. TVNZ had been

under the impression that he would advise other family members of the programme.

As the events which followed Patrick Henry Shine's death had been described in a

straightforward manner, TVNZ did not accept that the standard requiring good taste

had been contravened.

Mrs Baker advised the Authority that John Shine had been adopted by her parents in

1944 – five years after the events covered in the item. He had not spoken to her of the

forthcoming programme and she considered TVNZ's research efforts to be inadequate

and unprofessional. In response, TVNZ said that it did not want to become involved

in any family disagreement and maintained that its researcher's efforts were

reasonable. It observed that, from the correspondence, it was apparent that John

Shine had spoken to his mother about TVNZ's inquiries, if not to the complainant.

The Authority appreciates that the broadcast of the item on Epitaph invaded Mrs

Baker's sensitivity. It accepts that she would be upset when the facts surrounding the

disinterment of her the late grandfather's body were broadcast in a programme for

which the essential purpose was the entertainment of viewers. If all the procedures,

apparently established when the programme was conceived, had been followed, Mrs

Baker would have been kept fully informed and been given the opportunity to advance

her point of view. As the parties acknowledge however, it is not the broadcaster's job

to establish whether John Shine was adopted and whether he could speak on behalf of

the entire family. Nevertheless, it is implicit in the complaint that he was not as close

to Patrick Henry Shine as the complainant who may have known him before he died.

The Authority applies a number of principles when determining a complaint which

alleges the breach of an individual's privacy. Principle (ii) is the relevant one on this

occasion, and it reads:

ii) The protection of privacy also protects against the public disclosure of

some kinds of public facts. The "public" facts contemplated concern

events (such as criminal behaviour) which have, in effect, become private

again, for example, through the passage of time. Nevertheless, the public

disclosure of public facts will have to be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Whereas the Authority acknowledges and understands Mrs Baker's concerns, in view

of the ongoing interest in the events relating to Patrick Henry Shine, the Authority

does not accept that the item invaded her privacy in contravention of s.4(1)(c) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. Furthermore, the Authority does not accept that the details

were sensationalised in a manner which came close to breaching standard G2.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 December 1996

Appendix I

Mrs Baker's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 15 October 1996

Anne Baker of complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the

broadcast of an item on the programme Epitaph breached her and her children's

privacy.

Epitaph had been screened on TV2 at 7.30pm on 10 October 1996 and one item

recounted the indignities inflicted on her grandfather's body, Patrick Henry Shine,

shortly after his death. As the item made entertainment of the events, and as she had

not been contacted as she and her children were the late Mr Shine's only direct

descendants, she said that the broadcast had caused distress and anxiety to her family.

Mrs Baker enclosed a copy of a letter written to TVNZ a few days before the

broadcast in which she expressed similar concerns. She recalled that her late father had

asked for his father's name to be changed when the Crown Prosecutor at the trial of

the men who had taken the body, had written his memoirs.

She concluded her complaint:

[TVNZ] invaded mine and my children's personal privacy by screening and

making entertainment from an incident which at the time when it occurred caused

great distress to my late father and grandmother, and by making a TV show

about this ghastly business, have caused us further distress.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 29 October 1996

Assessing the privacy complaint under s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, TVNZ

explained that Epitaph was an hour-long pilot for a possible series which revealed

stories behind headstones found in many cemeteries. It continued:

The story to which Ms Baker's complaint refers had to do with her late

grandfather, Mr Patrick Henry Shine, who died 57 years ago but whose body

was subjected to a number of indignities by a pair of body-snatchers intent on

faking the death of one of them.

TVNZ considered that privacy principle (ii) was the relevant one to apply as it

referred to the disclosure of public facts which, through the passage of time, had again

become private.

While it expressed regret that the broadcast caused Mrs Baker distress, TVNZ pointed

out that the trial of the body-snatchers who has taken Mr Shine's recently buried

body was a front-page story in 1939 and the events were recounted in the regular

"grave yard tour" conducted at the Waikumete Cemetery. As the events were well

known both locally and in the wider community, TVNZ did not accept that the facts

had again become private over the course of time.

TVNZ also maintained that the broadcast did not breach the requirement in principle

(ii) that the disclosure of the facts revealed be highly offensive to the ordinary person.

The item, it averred, showed no disrespect for Mr Shine. Any opprobrium disclosed,

it added, attached to the body-snatchers and the broadcast would elicit sympathy for

the deceased and his family.

Noting that any impact on Mrs Baker would be minimised as her name was no longer

Shine, TVNZ also expressed surprise at her statement that she and her children were

Mr Shine's only living descendants. It reported that a researcher for the programme

had spoken to a Mr John Shine, grandson of Patrick Shine, who had endorsed TVNZ's

efforts and provided information for the programme. TVNZ concluded:

We are sorry that Ms Baker was not told about the programme in advance, but

the researcher tells us that Mr Shine told her he had a sister and left the

impression that he would contact surviving members of the family and tell them

about the programme. Mr Shine was contacted a second time to let him know

that a photograph of his late grandfather was to be included in the programme.

Mrs Baker's Final Comment - 8 November 1996

Describing herself as a reasonable person, Mrs Baker said that while the matter was

dealt with in the media in 1939 as a horrible crime, in 1996 it involved sensational

commercialism. An account in the history books, or as the memory of older residents,

was not justification for the way TVNZ had behaved. Mrs Baker maintained that the

item's presenter had treated the event as a joke while speaking to the representative

from the Friends of Waikumete cemetery.

Mrs Baker repeated that John Shine was not a blood relative and again asked why

TVNZ's researcher had not contacted her. Acting on an impression that John Shine

would speak to her, Mrs Baker continued, involved an insufficient effort on the

researcher's part. An apology was insufficient given the lack of professionalism on

TVNZ's part.

Objecting on the grounds of insensitivity and sexism to TVNZ's comment that the

impact on her would be reduced as her name was not Shine, Mrs Baker maintained

that TVNZ had breached her privacy and acted in bad faith.

Appendix II

Mrs Baker's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 15 October 1996

In her letter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority alleging a breach of privacy and

summarised in Appendix I, Mrs Baker also complained that the item showed bad taste

in recounting in some detail what happened to her grandfather's body after he died. In

the accompanying letter sent to TVNZ before the item was broadcast, Mrs Baker

considered that it was in poor taste to refer to the mutilation of part of her

grandfather's body and the use of kerosene to burn it.

The Authority forwarded the complaint which alleged a breach of the good taste and

decency standard to Television New Zealand Ltd for a response direct to Mrs Baker.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 29 October 1996

TVNZ advised Mrs Baker that her allegation about the item's bad taste had been

assessed under standard G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ wrote:

TVNZ has reviewed the item and, while it is sorry the broadcast caused you

distress, it has found nothing which in its view breaches the taste and decency

requirements.

The events which followed your grandfather's death are described in a

straightforward manner and in such a way, we believe, that viewers would feel a

great deal of sympathy for surviving members of Mr Shine's family. The action

of the body-snatchers in subjecting your grandfather's body to indignity was

certainly one lacking in taste and decency, but the accurate and factual reporting

of the event was not.

TVNZ also advised Mrs Baker that it had spoken to a Mr John Shine about the

programme who, it was believed, was to contact living relatives about the forthcoming

broadcast.

Mrs Baker's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 1 November

1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mrs Baker referred the complaint to the

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

Her impression on viewing the broadcast was that the incident was treated as "a bit of

a joke" and that was confirmed when the TV critic for the NZ Herald said the

programme was "fun and entertainment". That approach was not, Mrs Baker

maintained, in good taste.

With regard to TVNZ's reference to John Shine, Mrs Baker explained that he was

adopted by her parents in 1944, five years after Patrick Shine's death. Mrs Baker

stressed that she and her children were the only living descendants of Patrick Shine,

and that John Shine had no right to speak for her. She continued:

I realise that TVNZ had no way of knowing if John Shine was adopted or blood

or anything else for that matter, but I have always been under the impression

that a professional researcher, reporter etc. would check facts and not surmise

anything.

I have no idea why John Shine did not tell me about the programme, but I can

tell you, he has done this type of thing before.

Expressing concern that TVNZ had not made an effort to contact her, especially as

John Shine had told them about her, Mrs Baker said that her mother mentioned in

passing John Shine's recent contact with TVNZ. However, as her mother had just

been diagnosed with cancer, she had not pursued the matter. Mrs Baker concluded:

In view of all of the above, I still consider TVNZ to have breached my privacy

and shown extremely bad taste.

They should have talked to me. It was their responsibility. This whole thing

has been and still is very upsetting. I hope that you will agree with me.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 6 November 1996

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ maintained that the item complied with the

requirements of standard G2. It observed:

In passing we note that we have no wish to become involved in any

disagreement Mrs Baker may have with her (adopted) brother, Mr Stine (sic).

However, we maintain that the researcher acted properly in keeping Mr Stine

informed of the programme's content, and was entitled to believe that he would

pass the information on to other family members. He clearly did that in the case

of Mrs Baker's mother.

With respect to Mrs Baker it is not reasonable for her to expect a researcher to

ascertain whether or not someone is adopted. It was not relevant to this story,

and as far as we are aware adopted people have the same family (and privacy)

rights as do those born naturally into the family.

Mrs Baker's Final Comment - 11 November 1996

As she had now been told by John Shine that he had given TVNZ's researcher her

name and address, Mrs Baker considered that TVNZ's efforts were "slapdash". Some

effort on its part, she added, would have spared her considerable distress.

Mrs Baker's Further Final Comment - 15 November 1996

Mrs Baker maintained that TVNZ's researcher's efforts were insufficient. Despite

having been told her name and given her address, the researcher had acted on the

"impression" that John Shine would consult the family. Furthermore, John Shine's

name had been spelt incorrectly on two occasions as John Stine.

On the basis that it was the researcher's responsibility to inform her of the

programme, Mrs Baker insisted that the broadcast had invaded her family's and her

privacy.