BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Details of a murder which involved a blow to the victim's head while her hands were

tied behind her, and the possibility of asphyxiation and sexual interference with the

body in the grave, were recounted in a news item which reported the sentencing of the

murderer in the Auckland High Court. The item was included in TV One's Midday on

20 November 1996.

Mr Little complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the sensational manner in

which the tragedy was reported breached the standards requiring objectivity and good

taste.

Arguing that the item reported in a straightforward manner the prosecutor's statement in

court which detailed the unpleasant and disturbing facts, TVNZ denied that the

standards were breached.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Little referred his 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 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.

The imposition of a life sentence on Hayden Taylor for the murder of Nicola Rankin

was dealt with in a news item broadcast on TV One's Midday on 20 November 1996.

The information was conveyed through the use of a "live" report in which a reporter

who had attended the sentencing was standing outside the Court and was questioned by

the presenter. Details of the murder had not previously been carried by the media and

the report involved recounting details given by the prosecutor after the defendant had

pleaded guilty.

The reporter stated that the Court was told that the defendant had struck a blow to the

victim's head while her hands were tied behind her back. She was then buried in a

shallow grave and, it was stated, death could have resulted either from the blow to the

head or by asphyxiation. The defendant's counsel had only objected to the prosecutor's

summary, he continued, when it was suggested that there was sexual interference with

the body in the grave.

Mr Little complained to TVNZ that the details contained in the item were unnecessarily

explicit and graphic and went beyond what was fair and reasonable in the public

interest. He considered that the item had sensationalised the misery and horror.

TVNZ assessed the complaint against standards G2 and G14 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The first 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.

The other one reads:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

TVNZ maintained that the report was a straightforward account of the evidence

presented in open court. While some of the facts were disturbing, it denied that the

report was sensational or embellished in any way.

The Authority acknowledges that the report broadcast by TVNZ contained some horrific

details. However, as it is of the opinion that the report was presented in a matter-of-fact

and responsible manner, it does not agree with the complainant's description of the item

as sensational or unbalanced. Accordingly, it concludes, the item complied with the

requirements in standards G2 and G14.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
13 February 1997

Appendix

Mr Little's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 20 November 1996

Allen J Little of Levin complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about a news item

broadcast on Midday on TV One that day.

The item involved a report about the sentencing of Hayden Taylor who had confessed

to the killing of Nicola Rankin. Mr Little wrote:

Your reporter when outlining the evidence before the Court gave explicit and

graphic descriptions which caused me offence. Elaboration in this item went

beyond what is fair and reasonable reporting on a matter of public interest.

Arguing that the report sensationalised a horrid event, Mr Little maintained that the

report was unbalanced and breached the standard requiring good taste.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 December 1996

Assessing the complaint under standards G2 and G14 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ stated that the item reported details of the murder which

the prosecution had given in Court.

TVNZ acknowledged that the description of the attack on Ms Rankin and the

murderer's denial that he had sexually interfered with the body in the grave could give

rise to the complaint about sensationalism. Nevertheless, it observed:

While we can understand your distress at hearing these descriptions we do

observe that the reason we have open courts is so that members of the public can

see that justice is being done. Had some of this detail not emerged, how was the

public to place the life sentence imposed upon Taylor in perspective?

It contended:

In our view the reporter simply related in a straightforward manner evidence

presented in open court. That some of the facts were unpleasant and emotionally

disturbing is not denied - but that is no reason not to report them. We feel

strongly that news should not be over-sanitised and should, when criminal cases

are involved, provide sufficient information to allow the public to make informed

judgements of their own.

Having examined the print media coverage of the sentencing, TVNZ expressed the

opinion that its reporter had shown considerable restraint and wrote:

We recognise and sympathise with the distress you may have felt at coming upon

the facts surrounding the death of Nicola Rankin. However we believe in the

cliche about justice not only being done, but being seen to be done - and we hold

the view that the news media, of which TVNZ is part, has an important role in

that process. The facts were unpleasant, but our conclusion is that they were

presented to the public as a straightforward report of the proceedings of the court,

and were not embellished or sensationalised in any way.

As it considered the item had been an accurate and impartial report of the court

proceedings, and had not stepped beyond the bounds of good taste and decency, TVNZ

declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Little's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 9

December 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Little referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

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

Mr Little maintained that the report which outlined the explicit and graphic evidence

went beyond fair and reasonable reporting. The item, he wrote, had sensationalised

misery and horror. Mr Little considered that the print media reports were irrelevant

given the differences between the print and electronic media and, he wrote:

I contend the manner in which these matters were presented was not acceptable. I

believe broadcasters have an obligation to inform, but there needs to be some

sense of both balance and decency.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 17 December 1996

Other than noting that news selection was a common process throughout the media,

TVNZ declined to comment further.