BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The Christchurch Civic Creche case was discussed on talkback on Newstalk ZB on the

morning of 23 November 1997. A journalist who had written about the subject

discussed some aspects which he considered unusual, including the fact that the mother

of one of the child witnesses had requested videotapes of her child giving evidence, to

assist him in dealing with the trauma he had experienced. That request had been granted

by the court.

S complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. She maintained that the request for her son's tapes came from

information included in an affidavit filed by her with the court, that it was not for public

information, and that it should not have been broadcast.

The Radio Network Ltd (TRN) responded that neither the host nor the interviewee

named any parent or child associated with the case, nor did they did refer to the specific

age of any child or any specific tape. It did not consider there was any breach of

standards.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about and

have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The reasons behind a journalist's request to the Attorney General to re-open the

Christchurch Civic Creche case were discussed on Newstalk ZB on 23 November 1997

between 10.00–11.00am. Host John Blumsky interviewed David McLoughlin, a

journalist, who had written extensively on the case. During their discussion, Mr

McLoughlin described what he considered to be some of the more bizarre aspects of the

trial, including the fact that the mother of a child witness at the heart of the case had

requested from the court copies of the videotape of her son giving evidence.

S, the mother who made the request to the court, complained that the fact that she had

made such a request was a private matter and not for public information. She did not

believe, she said, that it should have been aired publicly. She expressed concern about

how the journalist gained access to the information, as the High Court in Christchurch

had not released it and it was subject to a suppression order. S maintained that many

listeners, familiar with the detail of the case, would have known it was she who

requested the tapes because some identifying information was given about the child and

the nature of his videotaped evidence. The effect on her child had been serious, she

claimed, and he felt insecure about people knowing the tapes were now in his

possession.

S asked that her name be suppressed in the Authority's decision.

In a very brief response, TRN advised that neither the host nor the interviewee

mentioned the name of any parent or child, nor did they refer to any specific age of the

child or to any specific tape.

The Authority first deals with the request for name suppression. It agrees that it is

inappropriate to release the complainant's name and grants her request for suppression.

Next it deals with the privacy complaint. It notes that TRN's brief response did not

assess the complaint against the Privacy Principles which the Authority applies when it

deals with privacy complaints. On this occasion, the Authority considers the relevant

Privacy Principle is Principle i), which reads:

i) The protection of privacy includes protection against the public

disclosure of private facts where the facts disclosed are highly offensive

and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

First, the Authority examines whether the facts disclosed during the broadcast were

private facts. What was disclosed was that the mother of one of the child witnesses had

requested a copy of the videotaped evidence of her child. The journalist interviewed on

the programme said that the child's evidence resulted in the three women creche workers

being charged, and described her request as being one of the bizarre aspects of the case.

He had extensively researched the case and had disclosed this information in another

public forum. The Authority therefore concludes that because the information was

already in the public arena, it did not satisfy the concept of being a private fact.

However, even if the information had not been disclosed in another forum, the

Authority is not convinced that the few facts disclosed were capable of identifying the

mother or her child. Much of the evidence had been suppressed, and listeners would

have been unlikely to have associated the woman with the person described in the

interview.

Nevertheless, S maintained that she would have been recognisable to those who were

very familiar with the case. Consequently, the Authority examines whether the facts

disclosed were highly offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person who knew the

identity of the mother of the child witness. Here, it was disclosed that a mother,

concerned about the effect of the trial on her child, had requested copies of the

videotaped evidence in order to help her child recover from the ordeal of the trial. The

Authority does not consider it inevitable that anyone hearing that information would

ascribe a motive to her request that would reflect adversely on her as a concerned parent.

The Authority concludes that the information disclosed was neither offensive nor

objectionable. Even if the mother was identifiable, what was disclosed did not, in the

Authority's view, breach Privacy Principle i).

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

The Authority wishes to express its concern about the adequacy of TRN's response to

the complaint. It was only just sufficient to enable the Authority to determine this

complaint. Moreover its brevity barely satisfies the principles set out in s.5 of the

Broadcasting Act. It reminds TRN of its obligations as set out in s.6(1) of the Act.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
5 March 1998

Appendix

S's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 11 December 1997

S of Christchurch complained about a talkback programme on Newstalk ZB on 23

November between 10.00–11.00am in which host John Blumsky and journalist David

McLLoughlin discussed the Christchurch Civic Creche case.

Mr McLoughlin was interviewed because he had studied the case extensively, and had

written to the Attorney General seeking a review of the case. He described what he

considered to be some of the bizarre aspects of the trial, including the fact that one of

the mothers of the child witnesses had requested copies of the videotapes of her son

giving evidence. The judge had granted that request.

S, the mother referred to, complained that her request for copies of the tapes was in her

affidavit, and that it was not for public information and should not have been broadcast.

The Radio Network's Response to the Authority – 16 December 1997

The Radio Network responded that at no time did the host or the interviewee mention

the name of any parent or child. They did not refer to any specific age of a child, or to

any specific tape. It noted that both were very careful about those factors.

The Network did not consider there was any breach of standards.

S's Final Comment – 23 January 1998

In her final comment to the Authority, S requested that her name be withheld in order to

protect her privacy.

Secondly, she claimed that when it was revealed on radio that a mother had requested

her son's tapes, many people who had been following the case would have known that

it was her requesting those tapes. She advised that this had caused a lot of problems

with her son, who now felt angry and unsafe because everyone who heard the

programme knew that he had the tapes.

Thirdly, S expressed her concern as to how the journalist got access to her affidavit, as

the High Court in Christchurch had advised her in writing that the affidavit was not

uplifted from the court. She pointed out that permission to do so came only from the

judge, and permission had not been granted in this case. In addition, she noted that

where suppression orders were in place, it was not permissible for the information to be

published. She added that the information did not come from her lawyer, or from the

Crown.