BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Footage taken at the scene of a fatal collision between a car and truck was included in

Police, broadcast on TV2 on 16 April 1998 at 8.00pm.

Ms Halliwell, a sister of the man who was killed in the collision, complained to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) that the footage, shown only six

weeks after the accident, was extremely distressing to the family and did not accord

the victim any dignity or respect. In her view, her brother's death had been shown

purely for entertainment. She also complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the

broadcaster, that it was a breach of good taste and insensitive to the family to

broadcast the footage of the accident scene.

TVNZ emphasised that the crash victim was not named or identified, and therefore it

was impossible to establish a breach of privacy. Further, the accident had occurred in

a public place in full daylight. It denied the assertion that the accident was exploited

for pure entertainment, arguing that it was in the public interest to show viewers how

the Police Road Safety teams performed their duties at fatal crash sites.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response to the standards aspect of the complaint, Ms

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given 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). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

Footage from the scene of a fatal accident involving a truck and a car was used to

demonstrate an aspect of the work of the Police Road Safety team. It was included as

an item on Police, broadcast on TV 2 on 16 April 1998 beginning at 8.00pm. One of

the tasks of the Police was to try to ascertain the cause of the crash, which apparently

had occurred on an open stretch of road. They were filmed performing their tasks at

the crash site. The commentary focused on the role of the Road Safety team and the

investigation into the crash. They were seen using laser equipment to create a map of

the scene which, with other site information, would enable them to calculate the speed

and direction of the vehicles involved. They discussed eyewitness reports, including

the suggestion, later proved to be incorrect, that the dog found dead at the scene had

been the cause of the crash. The commentator reported that Police described the

accident as one of the most horrific they had ever attended.

The Privacy Complaint

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

the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the privacy of her family and

of her late brother. She emphasised that although the victim of the crash was not

named, people who knew the family and knew her brother were aware that it was his

body in the car, his body parts which were strewn on the road, and his dog shown

dead on the side of the road. She said that she and her family objected to the scenes of

her brother's death being used for entertainment on television. She asked that her

family be shown some respect after the anguish it had been through.

TVNZ submitted that Ms Halliwell's concerns about the broadcast were more

appropriately dealt with under the Code of Practice than under the privacy provision

in the Broadcasting Act. It argued that because the victim was not named or identified

in any way, it was all but impossible to establish a breach of privacy. It also pointed

out that the accident occurred in a public place, and submitted that road crashes were

matters of considerable public concern.

By way of background, TVNZ explained that the purpose of the programme was to

provide viewers with an insight into the work done by the Police, and that it was their

role in the accident investigation which had been the focus of the item. It rejected Ms

Halliwell's assertion that her brother's death had been on television for "pure

entertainment". It maintained that the Police series dealt seriously with police

matters, and that it was in the public interest to generate awareness of what police

work entailed. TVNZ reported that as far as it was aware, it was the first time the

work of a Road Safety team had been featured on television.

TVNZ emphasised that prior to the screening of the programme it had given serious

consideration to the concerns expressed by the family and, as a result of their viewing

a preliminary version, some changes had been made to the programme. It also

explained that a set of procedures was followed regarding the editorial responsibility

for the content of the series as a whole.

It concluded that there was no infringement of the family's privacy.

When it deals with a privacy complaint, the Authority applies a set of Privacy

Principles which it enumerated in an Advisory Opinion dated 6 May 1996. The

question for the Authority is which, if any, of those principles apply to the facts of

this complaint.

First, the Authority notes that, consistent with the provisions of the Privacy Act

1993, the concept of the privacy of an individual does not extend to a deceased

person. Next it turns to the complaint that the family's privacy was invaded. The

Authority accepts that disclosure of details about the accident, and footage showing

the crash site were extremely distressing for the family. It understands that these

details might also have enabled those who knew the victim to identify him. However,

the fact is that the accident had occurred in a public place and details of it were

matters of public information. Furthermore, there was a public interest factor in

broadcasting the material which, in the Authority's view, would attract the protection

of privacy principle (vi). That principle reads:

(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.

Accordingly, the Authority declines to uphold the privacy complaint.

The Standards Complaint

Ms Halliwell complained that the entire programme breached standards G1, G2, G16,

G17 and V12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first two require

broadcasters:

G1   To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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.

The other standards read:

G16  News 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 and 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.

V12  The treatment in news, current affairs and documentary programmes of

violent and distressing material calls for careful editorial discernment as

to the extent of graphic detail carried. Should the use of violent and

distressing material be considered relevant and essential to the proper

understanding of the incident or event being portrayed, an appropriate

prior warning must be considered.

Particular care must be taken with graphic material which portrays

especially disturbing images, such as:

-  ill-treatment of people or animals

-  close-ups of dead and mutilated bodies of people or animals

-  views of people in extreme pain or distress, or at the moment of death

-  violence directed at children or children in distress

Material shown in the late evening may be more graphic than that

shown during general viewing times.

Standard G2

Ms Halliwell complained that the entire programme breached the good taste standard.

In her view, it served no educative purpose, since it did not provide any explanation

as to why the crash occurred. She objected to the apparently casual manner in which

the Police on the scene had referred to her brother's body parts, to the mess that the

crash had made, and to speculation about its cause. She considered it was a breach of

the standard to show the police officer lifting the cover which had been placed over

her brother's body in the car, and to show his arm and hand being circled with pink

spray paint on the road. In addition, she objected to the picture of her brother's dog,

lying dead on the road. Ms Halliwell contended that TVNZ's failure to obtain the

family's permission to screen the item was also a breach of good taste. Finally, she

wrote, TVNZ had disregarded her brother's right to dignity and privacy in death. She

repeated that the broadcast of the programme had caused her brother's family and

friends extreme distress.

In its response under this standard, TVNZ first dealt with Ms Halliwell's assertion

that no educative function was served by the item. It pointed out that its purpose

was not to comment on the possible cause of the crash, but to show how the police

responded to fatal accidents. In that respect, it argued, it was educational, as it

focused on the role of the police. Dealing with what Ms Halliwell perceived to be a

casual approach, TVNZ maintained that far from being casual, the police were seen

acting in a professional and workmanlike manner as they went about their

investigation. It suggested that their somewhat detached manner was a necessary

response to the trauma of the task they had to perform. With respect to Ms

Halliwell's complaint that parts of her brother's body were shown, TVNZ responded

that the scenes were carefully framed so that viewers were not able to identify human

remains. Similarly, TVNZ argued, it was not obvious in the shot where the police

officer was seen lifting a cover that her brother's body was underneath. With respect

to Ms Halliwell's concern about the lack of consultation with her family, TVNZ

noted that in conjunction with the production company and the police, it had carefully

considered her family's objections before the broadcast, and as a result, some cuts had

been made to the item. It had also concluded that as the accident had occurred in a

public place, and the material was demonstrably in the public interest, the item should

be broadcast. TVNZ added that there was no compulsion for members of the family

to watch it.

The Authority acknowledges that, for the victim's family, the broadcast would have

been extremely distressing, and it understands that it might have also been distressing

to be exposed to details which were revealed by the Police when they examined the

scene and discussed the possible reasons for the crash. However, in the context of

broadcasting standards, the test is whether the broadcast offended norms of

community standards with respect to good taste and decency. The Authority

acknowledges that some effort was made to deal with the situation with sensitivity,

and concludes that the item did not breach standard G2.

Standard G17

Ms Halliwell claimed that the programme clearly intruded into the family's grief. She

pointed out that the accident had occurred only six weeks prior to the broadcast. She

objected to the footage at the accident scene, including that which showed her

brother's wrecked car, his dog dead on the side of the road, and his body parts being

marked with spray paint on the road. She said that her family suffered distress

because of the comments by the Police and the narrator, and because of the very

graphic footage filmed at the accident site. Ms Halliwell maintained that her family

was not consulted before the material was used, and noted that her sister had had to

fight strenuously to have the original programme edited before broadcast.

Furthermore, she added, the trailers advertising the programme, which had been

broadcast in the two weeks prior to the its screening, had caused additional distress to

her family.

TVNZ reiterated that Ms Halliwell's brother was not identified on the programme. It

emphasised that the shots were carefully framed so that viewers were not able to

identify human remains, and that the footage had only been included to illustrate the

role of the police at the scene. TVNZ repeated that the concerns of the family had

been taken into consideration as far as was reasonably possible.

TVNZ also pointed out that standard G17 was not intended to prevent the broadcast

of material which added to the public understanding of an issue which was in the

public interest. The work of the Police Road Safety teams, it continued, was little

known to the public. TVNZ said it believed that this was the first time their work

had been the subject of a documentary and, it suggested, there were benefits to be

gained as a result of the public's greater understanding of the procedures undertaken at

accident scenes. TVNZ declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

As noted above, the Authority appreciates that, for the family, this broadcast was

perceived as an unwarranted intrusion into their grief. It notes that Ms Halliwell

specifically objected to footage which she said showed parts of her brother's body,

and highlighted the fact that his body was still in the car when the sequence was

filmed, underneath a cover. The Authority understands the family's point of view.

However, it accepts TVNZ's point that the scenes were carefully framed so as to

avoid showing human remains, and that the broadcast did not draw attention to the

fact that the victim's body was lying under the cover. The Authority does not believe

an ordinary viewer would have concluded otherwise. Furthermore, as the victim's

identity was not revealed, and the item was presented objectively and dispassionately,

the Authority concludes that standard G17 was not transgressed.

Standard V12

Ms Halliwell argued that a breach of standard V12 occurred because her brother's

body was seen to be still inside the wrecked car, and his body parts were said to be

strewn on the road. Also, her brother's dog was seen dead on the side of the road and

Police were heard to speculate on the role of the dog in the crash.

In relation to this aspect of the complaint, TVNZ "emphatically denied" that the

programme had been produced for entertainment value and ratings reasons. It

repeated that the series was a genuine effort to inform and educate viewers about the

role of the Police. Furthermore, it stressed, it did not show the victim's body or body

parts, and footage of the dog was included only to illustrate the confusion which

existed over its role, if any, in the accident. It concluded that standard V12 was not

infringed.

The Authority considers that the essence of this aspect of the complaint is closely

aligned to the complaint under standard G17. The Authority's approach is similar. It

considers that the broadcaster demonstrated its editorial discernment by ensuring that

the shots of the accident site did not reveal human remains and that the focus of the

item remained on the work done by the Police. It concludes there was no breach of

this standard.

Standard G1

Ms Halliwell argued that speculation on the cause of the crash, in particular the

suggestion that the dog might have been a stray which had wandered into the path of

the car, was neither truthful nor accurate. Thus, she maintained standard G1 was

breached.

TVNZ emphasised that the programme accurately and truthfully portrayed what the

Police Road Safety team did at the scene of the crash. It accurately reflected their

investigation and their efforts to determine what happened.

The Authority notes that the Police view on the cause of the crash was clearly

speculative, and that the role of the dog was inconclusive. It does not find a breach of

the standard, and concludes that the item accurately reflected what occurred in the

Police investigation at the scene.

Standard G16

In Ms Halliwell's opinion, the programme did not take into account the feelings of the

family of the victim. She acknowledged that it portrayed the work of the Police, but

pointed out that in making and screening the programme, her family had been caused

"a tremendous amount" of pain and distress. She considered that her family's feelings

should have been taken into account before broadcast, and pointed out that there were

no lessons to be learned from the accident because its cause was unknown.

TVNZ observed that it had already expressed its regrets for the distress caused the

family. However, it noted, in conjunction with the Police and the producer, it had

carefully considered the submissions made on the family's behalf, and had taken every

reasonable step to meet their concerns. TVNZ said that it was sorry Ms Halliwell

was dismayed by the broadcast, but that it was unable to conclude it had breached

broadcasting standards.

In assessing this point, the Authority notes that as a result of the family's

intercession, changes were made to the programme prior to the broadcast which took

account of their views. Although their wish to withhold the programme was not

acceded to, a compromise was reached which endeavoured to recognise their concerns.

Further, the Authority notes that the broadcaster, the Police and the programme

makers have developed a procedure to ensure that recognition is given to the position

of families affected by incidents portrayed in the series. The Authority considers this

to be an appropriate way to resolve the difficulties inherent in broadcasting material of

this degree of sensitivity, bearing in mind that it is unlikely that families would be able

to exercise a power of veto over such footage. The Authority concludes that standard

G16 was not transgressed in the broadcast.

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

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
23 July 1998

Appendix I

Alice Halliwell's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 16 April

1998

Ms Halliwell of Auckland complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 about footage of a fatal car and truck accident

shown on Police on TV2 at 8.00pm on 16 April 1998.

The driver of the car, who was killed, was her brother. She complained that the

programme did not accord her brother – or his dog, who was also killed – the dignity

and respect they deserved. The dog was shown lying dead on the road, and her

brother's body parts were shown surrounded by pink spray paint. Where, she asked,

was the dignity and respect in that?

Ms Halliwell suggested that if there were lessons to be learned from his death, she and

her family would support the use of the footage. However, she pointed out, the cause

of this accident was not yet known. She contended that her brother's death had been

on television "for pure entertainment".

She wrote:

I can ask you as his sister, as a member of the public, as a tax-payer, please,

please, please, think of the family and loved ones of the victims before

recklessly allowing film crews at accident sites. Consider their grief, their

feelings and their love. Six weeks is not long to see your loved ones on

national television dead in a car and dead on the side of the road.

This has been one of the most heartbreaking, painful experiences in my life,

and my family's lives. I feel showing this programme has taken away our

rights as a family and Carl and Jake's rights for privacy and respect.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 6 May 1998

At the outset, TVNZ observed that Ms Halliwell had not shown how her privacy, or

that of her family, was invaded by the broadcast. It submitted that her concerns were

more appropriately dealt with by reference to the Code of Practice than to the privacy

requirement in the Broadcasting Act.

With respect to privacy, it noted that the victim was not named or identified in any

way by the broadcast. It suggested therefore, it was all but impossible to establish a

breach of privacy.

By way of background, it advised the Authority that the programme's purpose was

to provide viewers with an insight into the work done by police Road Safety teams.

The pictures used concentrated on the individual police officers going about their

work. It pointed out that police were present in all the footage shown, and

emphasised that they were the item's focus.

TVNZ also pointed out that the accident occurred on State Highway One, in full

daylight, and a time when the television production team was legitimately recording

the activities of the Midland region for the Police series. It submitted that road

crashes were matters of considerable and legitimate public concern, as evidenced in a

wide variety of often graphic media material.

TVNZ specifically denied Ms Halliwell's assertion that her brother's death was on

television "for pure entertainment". It argued that the series dealt with police matters

seriously, and believed that it was in the public's interest to become aware of what

was involved in police work. As far as it was aware, the activities of a Road Safety

team had not previously been featured in a documentary on New Zealand television.

In response to Ms Halliwell's question about what could be learned, when the cause

of the accident was unknown, TVNZ suggested that she misunderstood the purpose

of the programme. What was learned, it responded, was the way in which the Road

Safety team performed their duties at the site of fatal car crashes.

TVNZ advised that the Police, TVNZ and the programme makers knew of, and gave

serious consideration to the concerns expressed by the relatives of the dead man prior

to the screening of the programme. As a result, a preliminary version of the

programme segment had been made available to some relatives, and as a consequence,

some changes were made to the visual content.

It added:

It has to be said that during these discussions it became evident that no action

other than total suppression of this segment would satisfy the expressed

concerns of some of the relatives of the deceased with whom we were dealing.

This option was seriously considered but New Zealand Police, TVNZ and

Communicado were in agreement that, in their considered judgement,

suppression of the segment would not have been an appropriate decision.

TVNZ also advised that the production of the programme was subject to an agreement

with New Zealand Police. That agreement established a set of procedures to be

followed in exercising editorial responsibility for the series' content as well as a

production code of conduct. It added that a joint Viewing Committee met weekly

during the production period and its recommendations had been observed.

The producer had also established a less formal arrangement with the Chief Executive

and representatives of Victim Support, which operated a nationwide network of

counsellors in cooperation with the Police and courts.

TVNZ concluded:

As a final observation, and with respect to Ms Halliwell, we observe that she

and her family were aware of the content of this programme and were under no

compulsion to watch it, if by doing so they risked causing themselves

additional grief or distress.

TVNZ did not believe the broadcast breached the family's privacy.

Ms Halliwell's Final Comment – 15 May 1998

Ms Halliwell said she stood by her complaint that TVNZ breached the privacy of her

family and her late brother by screening the programme.

She also advised the Authority that some members of her family had not viewed the

programme, but had seen the trailers for it which were screened the previous week,

and this had caused them great distress. She added that the family members who did

see the programme did so out of concern.

Ms Halliwell wrote:

After this programme was screened, both myself and my family had telephone

calls from extended family and people outside the family expressing both

disbelief and outrage about this programme. They had identified my brother

from the area which the Police very explicitly described, the fact that the car

had the number plate deleted made no difference as the make was identified

and the fact that there was a truck involved. The other main identifying factor

was that my brother's dog was shown, the dog is a fairly uncommon breed

(and overweight) and was easily recognised.

Ms Halliwell did not consider TVNZ could justify the screening by saying that the

accident occurred in a public place. She did not feel that gave the television crew the

right to film a very tragic accident and broadcast it on television.

Ms Halliwell noted that her sister had campaigned relentlessly to ensure that the

original version of the programme was edited. As a result of her work, she wrote, the

production company was in future going to consult with families of victims who were

shown on the programme. She said this change in policy was a result of pressure from

her sister and the media.

She concluded:

In my opinion, public education as to Police work can better be shown by

taking into consideration the victim's family, friends and colleagues and

admitting that a programme has been withdrawn to spare them unnecessary

distress, as should have been done in this case.

Appendix II

Ms Halliwell's Complaint to TVNZ Ltd – 23 April 1998

Ms Halliwell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programme Police

broadcast on 16 April 1998 on TV 2 at 8.00pm breached a number of broadcasting

standards.

She maintained that the entire programme breached standard G2 (good taste and

decency). She argued that the programme served no educational purpose regarding her

brother's death, the truck driver's responsibility, the actual crash or its cause. In her

opinion, it breached the standard by:

*  the casual comments about body parts, blood, the mess that the crash

had made, and speculation on the cause of the crash

*  lifting the cover over her brother's body which was still in the car when

the filming took place

*  showing her brother's arm and hand being sprayed with red paint on

the road by a policeman

*  showing her brother's dog lying dead on the side of the road

*  not getting her family's consent prior to the broadcast

* disregarding the privacy and dignity of her brother in death

* causing his family and friends extreme distress by showing the

programme and trailers with no regard to the effect it would have on

them.

Next, Ms Halliwell complained that standard G17 was breached, because the item

intruded into the family's grief. She pointed out that her brother had died only six

weeks previously, and that TVNZ had begun screening trailers two weeks prior to the

programme being broadcast.

Ms Halliwell wrote that showing the accident scene, with her brother's body still in

the car, his dog dead and uncovered, and his body parts being sprayed with red paint

was distressing and intrusive. She argued that having his dismembered arm and hand

sprayed with paint on the road and subsequently shown in the programme did not

show understanding for the bereaved. She wrote:

Policemen were shown on this programme, lifting up the blanket which

covered my brother's body and looking in the car at him, this does not show

understanding pr privacy, neither does a policeman commenting on the "mess"

and "having to clean up car parts and body parts" that fatal accidents cause.

Ms Halliwell advised that her family had suffered a great deal of distress from the

programme by comments made by the police, the narrator, and by the very graphic

footage filmed at the crash site.

She said that her family was not consulted prior to the broadcast. Her sister had to

fight strenuously to have the programme edited, but was not successful in having it

entirely taken off the air. Ms Halliwell noted that her sister had the additional stress

of viewing the original version.

Complaining under standard V12 which relates to the relevance of showing violent or

distressing material, Ms Halliwell wrote that there were no lessons to be learned from

her brother's death. He had not been drinking alcohol or speeding. There was no

reason to even show the programme, she wrote, except as entertainment value. She

said that she considered the item to be in very poor taste. As for the police

speculation on the cause of the accident, she said it did not serve any purpose in

educating the public, and only caused his family and friends considerable distress.

Ms Halliwell also complained that the item showed that her brother's body was still

in the car, his body parts were visible on the road, and the dead dog was clearly visible

on the side of the road when the item was filmed. She said that the pictures of the dog

also caused distress, particularly as there was speculation about his being the cause of

the crash.

Turning to standard G1 (truth and accuracy), Ms Halliwell said that the speculation

about the dog's role in the crash (that he was a stray) was neither truthful nor

accurate.

Ms Halliwell also complained that standard G16 was breached because it did not take

into account the feelings of the family of the victim. She acknowledged that it showed

the work of the police and the way they dealt with their work, but said it had caused

her family a great deal of pain and distress at a very sad time. In her view, their

feelings should have been taken into account before screening the programme. As she

had already noted, there were no lessons to be learned from this tragic accident.

In concluding, she repeated that the programme had caused her family shock, distress

and anguish. She felt that it had intruded on their private lives.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 6 May 1998

TVNZ emphasised that it had no wish to cause extra grief or distress. It began by

noting that the programme was part of a series made in cooperation with the Police

and intended to give viewers an insight into the sort of work done by the Police. In

TVNZ's view, it was in the public interest to show how Police performed their work.

This programme, it recorded, showed viewers how the specialist Road Safety team

worked at the scene of a fatal accident. It said it was the first time that the work of

that unit had been subject to documentary examination on New Zealand television.

TVNZ emphasised that at no time in the item was the victim identified by name, nor

did any of the pictures identify him in any way. It pointed out that the crash

occurred in a public place, and in full daylight. It occurred at a time when a television

production team was recording the activities of the police in the region for use in the

Police series.

TVNZ also recorded that the family's objections were carefully considered before the

broadcast, and as a result, some cuts had been made to the item. It did not consider it

necessary to drop the item altogether given the public interest, it wrote.

Turning to the standards raised, TVNZ pointed out, in relation to Ms Halliwell's

argument under standard G2, that it was not the purpose of the item to investigate

how or why the accident happened. The purpose was to show how the police

responded at the scene of fatal accidents, and in that context, the programme was

educational. It did not agree that police comments at the scene were casual, arguing

that police were shown acting in a professional manner. It added:

The somewhat detached manner in which some police approach such incidents

is as necessary a human response as the grief and distress exhibited by some

relatives of victims. It is not dissimilar to the detachment shown by medical

personnel when dealing with life and death situations.

Referring to the complaint that the item showed her brother's arm and hand, TVNZ

responded that the scenes were carefully framed so that viewers could not identify

human remains. Similarly, it argued, the shot where a policeman lifted the cover did

not indicate the presence of a body or indeed that the cover was used for that

purpose. To a detached viewer, it wrote, it was simply a policeman looking at part of

the wreckage.

With respect to the consultation with the family, TVNZ noted that the family's

concerns had been considered, and some alterations made as a consequence. It was

concluded by the police, the producer and TVNZ that the broadcast should proceed,

as the incident had occurred in a public place and was demonstrably in the public

interest. TVNZ added that there was no compulsion for Ms Halliwell or any of her

family to watch the programme. Because the programme emphasised the professional

and meticulous work of the police, TVNZ concluded that there was no breach of

standard G2.

Referring to standard G17, TVNZ stressed that Ms Halliwell's brother was not

identified in any way. It continued:

No identifiable human remains were shown, no close ups of the car wreckage

and no close ups of the dog. The shots that were included were necessary to

show the role of the police at such incidents. The distant shot of the dog, for

instance, was used to depict the confusion of its role (if any) in the crash.

TVNZ said that Ms Halliwell's concerns were considered and recognised as far as

possible. It added that she was aware of the content of the programme and was in a

position to decide whether to watch it. It noted that standard G17 concluded with a

statement that it was not intended to prevent the use of material which added

significantly to public understanding of an issue which was in the public arena and

interest.

TVNZ argued that the existence of the Road Safety team was little known and, as far

as it could ascertain, it was the first time the public had learned of their work in a

television documentary. It considered that the methods used to examine the scene and

ascertain the facts in relation to the accident were all matters of public interest and

education.

Turning to standard V12, TVNZ emphatically denied that the programme was

produced for entertainment value and to generate ratings. It added that the series was

a genuine effort to inform and educate viewers about the role of the Police, and this

item had specifically addressed the important part played by the specialist Police

Road Safety teams. It continued that the entire focus of the programme was on what

the police did, and was never intended to establish the cause of the crash.

TVNZ repeated that Ms Halliwell's brother's body was not shown, nor any

identifiable human remains. The dog was shown, at a distance, only to illustrate the

confusion in the minds of the police over its presence and role in the incident, it wrote.

It concluded that standard V12 was not infringed.

To the argument that standard G1 was breached because the Police speculated on the

cause of the crash, TVNZ responded that the item accurately reflected what the Road

Safety team did at the scene of the crash. In its view, standard G1 was not breached.

As far as standard G16 was concerned, TVNZ said it regretted that the family was

caused additional distress. However, it noted that the Police, the producer and TVNZ

had carefully considered the family's submissions and had taken every reasonable step

– short of total suppression – to meet those concerns.

Ms Halliwell's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 15 May 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision on her complaint, Ms Halliwell referred it to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority for investigation and review under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

She advised that she wished to have the complaint reviewed with respect to her letters

to TVNZ of 16 and 23 April.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 22 May 1998

TVNZ advised that it had no further comments to make.