BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A documentary about West Auckland, broadcast by TV One on 7 August 1997 at

7.30pm, used the murder of a young woman by her partner to illustrate the theme of

the "Wild West".

Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

item was unbalanced in its discussion of the murder case, and that by showing and

identifying her, it had breached the privacy of the murdered woman's young daughter.

Initially TVNZ refused to accept the complaint since it contained abusive language

which was directed at TVNZ and its staff. After Mr Smits had re-submitted the

complaint, couched in more moderate language, TVNZ rejected the allegation that the

item diminished the seriousness of the murder. Referring to the privacy aspect,

TVNZ advised that permission was given by the little girl's paternal grandparents to

film her. It declined to uphold the privacy complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Smits referred the complaints 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 Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

After some correspondence about the acceptable tone to be used in a letter of

complaint, Mr Smits complained to TVNZ about an Assignment programme. The

programme had examined popular conceptions about the West Auckland, or

"Westie", culture and whether it was a "moral wasteland", and had used details of a

recent gruesome murder as an illustration of the source of public perceptions.

Mr Smits complained that the item denigrated the murder victim, Stephanie Skidmore,

as a stripper, prostitute and drug addict, and had implied that she was killed by her

partner, Jason Menzies, as he had to defend himself. The couple's child was shown

and, Mr Smits said, her privacy was breached by Jason Menzies' mother in her

attempt "to curry sympathy" to assist in the forthcoming custody case involving the

child.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and

standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The former requires

broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual, while

the standard requires them:

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

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

TVNZ did not accept the aspect of the complaint that the seriousness of the crime of

murder had been diminished. It cited extracts from the script which, it said, ensured

that viewers were aware of the horror of it. TVNZ pointed out that the crime was

used while examining the West Auckland culture, and had disclosed details of the

crime and the tempestuous relationship not previously given.

As the child's guardians had given permission for her to be filmed, and as she was

central to the tragedy, TVNZ did not accept that her privacy had been breached.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Smits persisted in his opinion

that the item was unbalanced, and maintained his objection to the footage of the child.

The Authority addresses first the issue of balance. It notes that the programme, in its

examination of the "Westie" culture generally and in its discussion of the murder

specifically, interviewed an array of people. The range of opinions given about West

Auckland, and about Jason Menzies and Stephanie Skidmore, it believes, provided a

reasonably good indication of their personalities and the kind of environment in which

they lived. The Authority feels some slight hesitation at some of the remarks made

about the victim, but does not consider that standard G6 was threatened. In the

context of the programme which focussed on West Auckland, the Authority concludes

that the programme overall was balanced, impartial and fair.

The Authority, nevertheless, has concern about the footage of the couple's daughter.

It acknowledges that the shots showed an apparently happy child, and the people who

cared for her. However, she was identified on the programme in a way which

infringed her rights to privacy, and which would ordinarily require consent before

broadcast. The Authority accepts that permission was sought and given by persons

who at that time apparently had the day to day responsibility for the child. But it has

misgivings as to whether that was sufficient in the circumstances of this case. The

Authority is of the view that such consent can only be given by the parents or legal

guardians of a child, and then only in circumstances where it is in the child's interests

to permit filming and subsequent broadcast.

It is not clear in the present case whether the grandparents were in fact the legal

guardians of the child at the time the filming took place. TVNZ described their status

as that of "legal custodians". But the programme itself made it clear that whole issue

of custody was still before the Courts. Moreover, the Authority is not satisfied that

the filming, and subsequent broadcast, were in the interests of this child. She is young

and could well face considerable stress as she grows up and learns about the events

referred to in this programme. She will have to try to come to terms with all that has

occurred. In the Authority's opinion, public filming of this sort will do little to assist

her in this process. In addition, the Authority has the impression, rightly or wrongly,

that perhaps the grandparents stood to gain more from filming than the child. The

Authority also considers that there were other ways available to the broadcaster to

convey the storyline in this case while still respecting the privacy of this child.

Having said that, the evidence as to the grandparents' legal status is equivocal. It is

not such as to enable the Authority to conclude definitely that the consent given in this

case should be ignored. The Authority is also mindful of the fact that it has yet to

develop a principle which deals specifically with the privacy interests of children. It

now signals its intention to do so.

Against this background, the Authority declines to uphold the privacy complaint on

this occasion.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
12 February 1998

Appendix

Mr Smits' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 21 August 1997

Phillip Smits of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an

Assignment programme broadcast at 7.30pm on 7 August 1997, which he stated was

unbalanced and involved a breach of privacy.

The item, Mr Smits said, presented the male referred to as a gentle person, and a

victim, while the dead woman was portrayed as the villain. Further, the item showed

the couple's child and talked about the custody case involving her. He regarded this

as a breach of the child's privacy.

Mr Smits expressed particular concern that no effort had been made to show the

woman as at least partly a product of her environment. Rather, Mr Smits argued, the

approach adopted included moralist overtones which suggested that the woman

"deserved it".

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 25 August 1997

Pointing out that it had explained previously that it did not intend to accept complaints

which were either abusive or made personal comments about staff, TVNZ declined to

accept the complaint on the basis that TVNZ had been described as "bastards".

Further, it said, some of the comments made about the reporter bordered on being

actionable.

Mr Smits' First Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 1 September

1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to accept his formal complaint, Mr Smits

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

Act 1989.

Mr Smits recalled that he had watched the programme to see if Stephanie Skidmore

(the murdered woman) was given a "fair go" and, he argued, neither she nor her

daughter were. He maintained that the programme implied that Jason Menzies had

had to kill her in order to defend himself, while Ms Skidmore was denigrated as being

a stripper, prostitute and drug addict. He also stated that the programme had little to

do with the West Auckland culture, which was said to be the focus of the item.

Because Ms Skidmore was a whore, he said, she was treated as valueless.

As for her child, Mr Smits expressed amazement that Jason Menzies' mother was

allowed "to curry sympathy". The child, he believed, was exploited as the custody

case involving her was irrelevant to the subject of the programme. He wrote:

Her father killed her mother and left her to rot where she died – then chucked

her in the boot of his old car. Hadn't she had enough tragedy in her life

already? – didn't she deserve some consideration?

Describing the programme as a "disgrace", Mr Smits acknowledged that Stephanie

Skidmore was not an angel, but, he wrote, she did not deserve to die.

TVNZ's Report to the Authority – 5 September 1997

TVNZ wrote:

We advise that we are holding to a policy of not accepting formal complaints

from any viewer, who indulges in personal abuse of out staff. We do not see

this as being precious, just a requirement that correspondents adhere to some

semblance of courteous discourse.

Mr Smits, TVNZ added, was the only person who made formal complaints which

involved personal abuse. It understood that the Advertising Standards Complaints

Board and TV3 both refused to correspond with Mr Smits. TVNZ, on the other hand,

would deal with complaints written in temperate language, and had upheld one

recently. TVNZ concluded:

We remain prepared to consider the Assignment complaint from Mr Smits but

only if he will rewrite it in reasoned and moderate terms, refraining from

remarks about TVNZ staff members.

Mr Smits' Letter to the Authority – 14 September 1997

Mr Smits advised that he had re-submitted "a censored version" of his complaint to

TVNZ.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 26 September 1997

TVNZ advised that the complaint was dealt with under standard G6 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice and s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

It dealt first with the matter of balance, and the suggestion that the programme had

diminished the seriousness of the crime committed by Jason Menzies when he

murdered Stephanie Skidmore. It did not agree with Mr Smits' view, and referred to

extracts from the script, which, it suggested, reflected the full horror of the crime.

These included:

• "It was not hard to gasp at what 20 year-old Jason Menzies had done to Stephanie

              Skidmore".

• "... long-haired youth from West Auckland was accused of having strangled

           Stephanie in their Henderson flat, then having left her body to decompose, first in

           the flat, then in the boot of her car, for seven weeks".

• "To make matters worse Jason Menzies, who went on caring for their daughter

           Lexie, had lied about Stephanie's disappearance to everyone, claiming on

           television she'd run away".

• "When the truth came out, it was ghastly".

• "Stephanie had been choked nearly to death, then finished off with an electrical

           cord around her neck".

• "So Danny moved in with Jason into a place where a corpse lay decomposing".
  
  
• "Jason made an easy villain. He'd murdered, lied and manipulated and dragged

            his mates into a distasteful conspiracy. The jury had little difficulty in finding him

           guilty of killing the 20 year old mother of his child".

In TVNZ's view, the programme did not "explain away" the enormity of the crime. It

considered that it was hard to imagine that anyone would have felt other than outrage

and revulsion at Jason's behaviour.

TVNZ did not consider that by looking at the victim's life and revealing something

about her showed a lack of balance. It repeated that the extract came in the context of

a programme about West Auckland, and was examining whether "moral wasteland"

was a fair description of the region. The reference to the tempestuous relationship

between Ms Skidmore and Mr Menzies was to provide a fully rounded version of the

crime not previously revealed in the media. It did not consider there was a lack of

balance.

Referring to the allegation that the couple's daughter's privacy was breached, TVNZ

emphasised that she was central in the tragedy and that without her the story would be

incomplete. It pointed out that permission had been given to film her by her legal

custodians. It declined to uphold the privacy complaint.

With respect to Mr Smits' allegations about the reporter, TVNZ wrote:

As this point we wish to emphatically reject your unfounded accusation that

the reporter's "prejudice as a practising moralist/Christian resulted in him

deliberately trying to minimise what Menzies did." The reporter concerned is

one of this country's most experienced and respected journalists with a string

of awards to his credit. Like any professional journalist must when he comes

to work he sets aside his own personal views in the interest of presenting

material in an objective, impartial and balanced manner.

Mr Smits' Referral to the Authority – 12 October 1997

In Mr Smits' view, the programme contained a one-sided debate about whether

Westie culture was good or bad.

He objected to the story about the murder of Ms Skidmore, which he described as

"one of the most disgusting things" he had ever witnessed. He said that the footage of

the inside of her flat was voyeuristic and prurient, and accused TVNZ of making no

effort to bring home the horror of what had happened.

He repeated his objection to the footage of Ms Skidmore's daughter.

Mr Smits also claimed that the item put forward an interpretation of the crime which

argued that Jason Menzies was only defending himself.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 23 October 1997

TVNZ expressed its disappointment that the referral amounted to a personal attack on

the reporter, rather than a critique of the programme.

Mr Smit's Final Comment – 2 November 1997

Maintaining that an attack on the writer of a complaint was a good indication that

TVNZ had no defence, Mr Smits stated that the murderer, and his family and friends

were dealt with positively, while the victim was not shown any compassion. She did

not, he wrote, deserve to be murdered.