BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for three years for supplying drugs on

Phil Bancroft, a former rugby league international, was reported on Midday on 7 May.

The coverage included a shot of his partner and their child outside the courthouse.

Mrs Bancroft, mother of Phil Bancroft, complained to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority that the item broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd breached the

family's privacy.

Explaining that the conviction and sentence of a former international rugby league

player was a matter of public interest, and that the shot of his family was taken while

they were outside the courthouse, TVNZ advised the Authority that it did not

consider that the standard had been breached.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds an aspect of the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Former rugby league international player, Phil Bancroft, was sentenced to three years

imprisonment for supplying drugs, in the Auckland High Court on 7 May 1996. That

matter was reported on TVNZ's news programme Midday.

The item, of 25 seconds' duration, included an introduction read by the presenter, file

footage of Phil Bancroft playing league and a brief shot of his partner and their son

outside the courthouse. The item named the partner, and said that she intended to

stay in Auckland where she had a business, although Mr Bancroft hoped to serve his

sentence in Christchurch.

Mrs Bancroft, Phil Bancroft's mother, complained to the Authority that the item

breached the family's privacy. She referred to Phil's brother, her parents, her other

children and to Phil's partner and son as being affected, and maintained that the family

did not deserve the publicity.

At the Authority's request, TVNZ assessed the complaint as an alleged breach of

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

standards consistent with the privacy of the individual.

Denying that the report was sensational, TVNZ pointed out that the item referred to a

famous rugby league player "who had fallen from grace". While it was understandable

that Mrs Bancroft and her family were affected by the publicity, TVNZ explained

that it was the role of the news media to report on crime and criminals. It

acknowledged that it was not practical to report every case, although:

It does however have a duty to describe cases involving people who have in the

past been held up as positive examples for others to emulate. That other people

are hurt in the process is a sad fact of life.

After its initial consideration of the complaint, the Authority sought further

information from Mrs Bancroft and TVNZ about the circumstances involving the

filming of Phil Bancroft's partner and their child.

TVNZ reported that the filming, of which the woman was aware, had occurred in a

public place – on the pavement as the pair emerged from the courthouse – and that the

encounter was amicable and was relevant because of the unusual situation involving

the separation of Phil Bancroft from his partner.

The partner advised the Authority that it was impossible not to be aware that she was

being filmed although she had it made clear to the reporter that she did not wish to be

filmed. However, she wrote, her explicit wishes "were completely ignored".

The Authority applies the privacy principles which it has promulgated by way of

Advisory Opinions when determining complaints which allege a breach of an

individual's privacy. The most recent Opinion is dated 6 May 1996, which is the day

before the broadcast of the item complained about. While it could be argued that it is

thus unreasonable to apply a privacy principle which was only formulated as a

principle for the first time in that Opinion, the Authority notes that the principle had

been clearly enunciated in a decision issued earlier in this year (Nos: 1996-004–1996-

006 – dated 18.1.96). That Advisory Opinion ensured that all the principles already

enunciated by the Authority were available in one document.

By way of introduction to its decision on the complaint, the Authority notes that

there is one over-riding consideration when privacy principles are discussed and

applied. That matter is currently recorded as principle (vi) and 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.

The Authority feels some degree of sympathy for Mrs Bancroft and the other

members of her family. Nevertheless, the conviction for supplying drugs of a former

rugby league player who had been a member of the national team and his sentence of

imprisonment, is in the Authority's opinion a legitimate matter of public interest.

Accordingly, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the report on

Midday which referred to Phil Bancroft, breached his privacy or that of members of

his family.

The aspect of the complaint which alleged that the item breached the privacy of Phil

Bancroft's partner and their son raises other issues. Although she was not implicated

in, convicted, or sentenced for any crimes, the partner was filmed leaving the

courthouse, identified by name and described as a businesswoman. The Authority

considers that principles (iii) and (v) are applicable to this matter. They provide:

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 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.

v) The protection of privacy includes the protection against the disclosure by

the broadcaster, without consent, of the name and/or address and/or

telephone number of an identifiable person. This principle does not apply

to details which are public information, or to news and current affairs

reporting, and is subject to the "public interest" defence in principle (vi).

Dealing first with principle (iii) which is concerned with the intentional interference

with an individual's interest in solitude, the Authority observes that Mr Bancroft's

partner did not want to be filmed and had made that point clearly to the reporter.

However, principle (iii) does not apply where the person who objects is filmed in a

public place. As that was the situation in the matter complained about, the Authority

does not accept that the filming of Mr Bancroft's partner and child as they came out

of the courtroom amounted to a breach of their privacy.

The item not only explained that the woman and the child were Mr Bancroft's partner

and their child, but also identified her by name. As the identification occurred without

consent, the Authority considers that there is a breach of the requirements of principle

(v). It is now required to consider whether the principle was or was not applicable in

view of the exceptions it contains.

While the Authority has no hesitation in deciding that the public interest defence

applies to the identification of Mr Bancroft, it is also firmly of the view that it does

not apply to the identification of his partner. There was not the slightest suggestion

that she was in any way involved in the criminal activity, and she was not identifiable

merely as part of a family group. Rather, she was on her own with her child and the

item referred to her as a businesswoman. Thus, as she was not a protagonist in any

way in the item, the Authority considers that there is no public interest in identifying

her. The fact that she intended to stay in Auckland while Mr Bancroft was seeking to

serve his sentence in a prison in Christchurch was incidental, and did not justify the

publication of her name. Accordingly, the Authority concludes that although TVNZ

did not breach the standards in filming her while she left the courthouse, it did so when

it identified her by name.

For the reasons above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast

by Television New Zealand Ltd of an item on Midday on 7 May 1996 breached

the privacy of Mr Bancroft's partner.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. On this occasion, although the visual contained in the item

breached the partner's privacy by naming her, it was a brief shot and, in all the

circumstances, the Authority does not consider that an order is appropriate.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
15 August 1996

Appendix

Mrs Bancroft's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20 May

1996

Following correspondence inquiring about the process for making a formal complaint

alleging a breach of privacy, Enid Bancroft of Christchurch complained formally to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority about an item shown on the news programme

Midday broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd on 7 May 1996.

Advising that her son was sentenced to imprisonment in the Auckland High Court on

7 May, Mrs Bancroft referred to the news item which reported the event and asked:

Do they not consider the family at all in these matters, do they not think that

there are other people who matter such as another fine son and two wonderful

grandchildren who attend school and who also have to bear the burden. As for

photographing Philip's partner and our grandchild goes beyond the pale. They

had nothing to do with it. She is a fine hardworking person who was there to

support Philip and deserves to be treated better and with some compassion

and with dignity.

Mrs Bancroft considered that there had been sufficient television publicity about the

matter in April 1995 and wondered why her son was singled out when there were no

photographs of the others involved in the same case.

She believed that the family did not deserve the publicity and sought an apology.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 29 May 1996

Assessing the complaint, at the Authority's request, as an alleged breach of s.4(1)(c)

of the Broadcasting Act 1989, TVNZ said that the item reported the sentencing of

Mrs Bancroft's son, a former rugby league international player, following his

conviction for supplying drugs.

TVNZ noted that some correspondence it had written on the matter crossed in the

mail before the formal complaint was made.

The item complained about, it explained, was "just 25 seconds duration" and after an

introduction read by the presenter, file footage of Phil Bancroft playing league was

shown followed by a seven second shot of his partner and their son outside the

courthouse. TVNZ maintained:

From an editorial point of view the story was justified. Here was a famous

rugby league player, a role model in our society, who had fallen from grace and

was being sentenced on three charges of supplying drugs. He was sent to

prison for three years.

In response to Mrs Bancroft's questions, TVNZ said that Phil Bancroft was singled

out for these reasons, and "it is right and proper that a news service should describe

his fall".

TVNZ considered that privacy principles (v) and (vi) were relevant and considered

that they were not contravened as the item reported public information, and:

... distressing as it must be to Mrs Bancroft, the fact that a sporting hero has

ended up in prison is a legitimate matter of public interest and concern.

Denying that the report was "sensationalised", as Mrs Bancroft claimed - indeed it

believed it had shown considerable restraint - TVNZ said Phil Bancroft's partner had

shown no distress and her presence was relevant as she intended to stay in Auckland

while Phil wished to serve his sentence in Christchurch. As she was filmed in a public

place outside the courthouse, the item had not breached privacy principle (iii).

TVNZ concluded:

As it indicated in the letter from our News and Current Affairs Department we

have genuine sympathy for Mrs Bancroft. We understand that she is

distraught about the conviction of her son and we understand too that other

members of the family are affected by the publicity surrounding the case.

However with respect to her, Mrs Bancroft's situation is not different from

that of any other mother who sees her son jailed for a criminal offence. It is

part of the role of the news media to reassure members of the public generally

that the law is being carried out and that offenders are being punished. It

cannot do that in every case; there are simply too many people appearing

before the courts. It does however have a duty to describe cases involving

people who have in the past been held up as positive examples for others to

emulate. That other people are hurt in the process is a sad fact of life.

Mrs Bancroft's Final Comment - 7 June 1996

Describing TVNZ's letter as "totally offensive and unsympathetic", Mrs Bancroft

made six points.

First, her son was not a famous league player but had worked hard at it. Secondly,

TVNZ's use of the se "fall from grace" suggested that they got pleasure from his

downfall. Thirdly, she did not consider that the matter was of sufficient public

interest to warrant television coverage. As her fourth point, the earlier coverage meant

that her son was mentioned by journalists before his trial. Fifthly, his partner might

not have shown distress, but who had sought her grandchild's opinion? It was not,

she argued, a public matter as to where the sentence was to be served.

Finally, she considered that TVNZ's references to other mothers disclosed its lack of

compassion.

Further Correspondence

Having considered the complaint, on 27 June 1996 the Authority wrote to TVNZ. It

referred specifically to the shot of Philip Bancroft's partner and their child and asked

whether she had consented to the filming. The letter was copied to Mrs Bancroft

who, on 2 July 1996, advised the Authority that she would let the Authority have a

written comment from Philip's partner if required. The Authority took up the offer.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 2 July 1996

TVNZ advised that this shot of Philip Bancroft's partner and child showed them on

the pavement outside the courthouse as they came out after hearing the sentence.

TVNZ wrote:

The shot had relevance because of the unusual situation in which Mr Bancroft

was to serve his sentence in Christchurch, while his partner and son remained

in Auckland. We submit this was a legitimate part of the story and in the

public interest.

The cameraman confirms that while no specific request was made for

permission to film (none is required in a public place) the young woman was

clearly aware that she was being filmed and the encounter was entirely

amicable.

Mrs Bancroft's Reply to the Authority - 17 July 1996

Describing TVNZ's reference to the place where Philip hoped to serve his sentence as

of no public relevance, Mrs Bancroft took exception to the way Philip's partner and

child were treated. She enclosed a letter from her dated 14 July 1996 in which DF (his

partner) outlined the situation in which she had been filmed.

She recalled that she had been approached by a TVNZ reporter who had sought her

reaction to Philip's sentence. She wrote:

My reply was that in no way did I wish for either myself or child to be on

camera. As for my being aware that I was being filmed and that the encounter

was amicable, it was impossible to miss the cameraman standing directly in front

of you, I found it a very distressing experience and in no way amicable for me.

I can not conceive of what public interest coverage of myself and my baby could

be, considering Philip and myself were living in different cities at the time of his

arrest, and at no stage was I involved in Philip's situation.

I had made an effort to be as far removed from the proceedings as possible and

was only in court that day to support Philip.

I am in a business dealing with the public every day, and would hate to think

that prospective clients opinions could be coloured by the coverage.

It was distressing enough to be in court that day without the added stress of

having a camera follow my exit from court, after when being asked to consent I

explicitly said NO to any camera footage my wishes were completely ignored.