BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A dispute between neighbours about the noise made by a parrot was the subject of an

item on Holmes broadcast on 28 November 1996 between 7.00–7.30pm.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989 that his privacy was breached because Television New Zealand

Ltd, the broadcaster, had not honoured its agreement with him not to broadcast shots

of his house or its approaches, and not to broadcast his family name.

TVNZ responded that the story was already in the public arena, having been covered

on two occasions in the local newspaper. In addition, it maintained that Mr Bowen

had wanted the item to be made, although he was reluctant to appear on camera

himself and had expressed reservations about filming on his property. In TVNZ's

view, because the item was prepared with the consent of the Bowens, there was no

breach of their privacy.

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.

A dispute between neighbours about a noisy parrot was the subject of an item on

Holmes on 28 November 1996 between 7.00–7.30pm. According to the parrot's

neighbours, its noise was so disturbing and persistent that they were unable to go

outside into their back garden. It had reached a point where they had decided they had

to sell their home and move because they could no longer tolerate the parrot's

screeches which went on all day long. They had lodged a civil claim against the

parrot's owners on the grounds that the property had been devalued because of the

noise. Meanwhile, the owners of the parrot maintained that their neighbours

themselves were responsible for noise from their stereo and a go-cart. The report

concluded by noting that the dispute was extremely acrimonious, and that it had

become out of hand.

Mr Bowen complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the broadcast

breached his privacy because the broadcaster had not honoured a prior agreement not

to include any shots of his house and not to broadcast his family name. He explained

that because he was anxious to sell his house quickly, he wanted no publicity until

after it was sold. He explained that he agreed to the interview only on the terms he

stipulated.

The complaint was referred to TVNZ for comment, and in its response, it pointed out

first that the story had first appeared in the local newspaper and that a follow-up

story appeared after the Holmes item was broadcast. In TVNZ's view, this negated

the claim that the sale of the house was made more difficult as a result of the publicity

generated by the Holmes item. Secondly, TVNZ observed, Mr Bowen was very keen

to have the story aired. It acknowledged that in the discussions prior to the broadcast

he showed reluctance to appear on camera and expressed some reservations about the

filming of his property, but later acceded to the request to film, recognising that it was

important to show the proximity of his property to the neighbour's house. The

request for an on-screen interview was agreed to as it gave the Bowens the

opportunity to put their point of view.

TVNZ maintained that a viewing of the item tended to confirm that the Bowens

cooperated with the film crew at the time of the filming, and suggested that the back

garden shots were not sufficient to make the property identifiable. It noted that while

Mr Bowen requested that no shots of the front of the house, or of the For Sale signs

be shown, he did not indicate that he did not want any of the house shown.

TVNZ contended that the shots of the back garden were crucial to illustrate the

closeness of the properties, and that the street view of the neighbourhood did not

identify which of the properties was the complainant's home. TVNZ also advised

that no request was made to conceal the Bowens' names.

TVNZ drew the Authority's attention to the fact that neither the pictures in the item

nor the interview with Mrs Bowen could have been acquired without the cooperation

and consent of the Bowens. It considered privacy principle (vii) relevant and declined

to uphold the complaint that the Bowens' privacy was breached. That principle

states:

(vii)  An individual who consents to the invasion of his or her privacy,

cannot later succeed in a claim for a breach of privacy.

When it deals with complaints alleging a breach of s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act

1989, the Authority applies the privacy principles which it has enumerated in an

Advisory Opinion dated 6 May 1996. It concurs with TVNZ's conclusion that

privacy principle (vii) is the appropriate principle to apply on this occasion.

In assessing the complaint, it takes into account the fact that there had been prior

publicity about the dispute, and accepts that the filming would not have been possible

without the cooperation of the Bowens. In the Authority's view, because they had

themselves publicised the issues, they had forfeited their right to privacy. It declines

to uphold the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
10 April 1997

Appendix

Mr J R Bowen's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 11

December 1996

Mr Bowen of Nelson complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that an item on Holmes broadcast by

Television New Zealand Ltd on 28 November 1996 at 7.00pm breached his privacy.

The item dealt with an ongoing dispute between Mr Bowen and his neighbours over

the noise of the neighbours' parrot. When approached by TVNZ, Mr Bowen

explained that because his house was for sale, he did not wish to attract publicity until

it was sold. However, he did agree to an interview on condition that no shots were

taken of his house or its approaches, and that his family name not be broadcast. He

imposed these conditions because he was desperate to sell his house and there were

potential buyers interested in it.

Mr Bowen claimed that because his conditions were not adhered to, his prospects of

selling the house were now bleak and consequently the selling price would have to be

reduced.

Mr Bowen reported that the day after the interview, he spoke to the reporter and

reaffirmed the conditions for the broadcast. He added:

During filming I noticed the camera was pointing towards the house and was

told "it's only a shot of the corner". Also later my wife Donna was asked her

name, she gave it thinking it was for TVNZ administration purposes only.

Mr Bowen considered that his prior agreement with TVNZ should have been

honoured.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 31 January 1997

TVNZ advised the Authority that it had discussed Mr Bowen's allegations that it had

reneged on its agreement to restrict the pictures of his house in the item, and to keep

confidential his family name. It advised that it strongly disputed Mr Bowen's account

of what went on.

First, it noted that TVNZ was not the first media organisation to deal with the

dispute, and that it had appeared earlier in the local newspaper. After the Holmes

item was screened, a second story was printed in the newspaper which included

criticism of TVNZ's handling of the story. In TVNZ's view, this countered the claim

that the publicity generated by the Holmes story reduced the complainant's prospect

of selling his house.

Secondly, TVNZ made the point that Mr Bowen was very keen to have the story

aired. It acknowledged that he showed reluctance to appear on camera and expressed

some reservations about the filming of his property. However, TVNZ noted, he:

...acceded to filming after the reporter made it clear that there was no way the

story could go to air without showing some of his house; its proximity to the

neighbour's house and garden had to be included for the story to have any

meaning at all. An on camera interview was also requested so that Mr

Bowen's side of the argument could be heard. At that point it was agreed that

Mrs Donna Bowen would appear in the item.

TVNZ suggested that after viewing the item it was clear that the Bowens cooperated

with the crew at the time of filming. The crew took limited shots of the house, and the

garden as seen from the deck. In TVNZ's view, these did not make the property

identifiable. It noted that while Mr Bowen requested that the For Sale signs and the

front of the house be excluded, he did not indicate that he did not want any part of the

house shown. Apart from the interior shots, a corner of the house was about all that

was shown.

TVNZ pointed out that the pictures did not include (as requested) any For Sale signs.

The back garden shots were, in its view, important to illustrate the couple's claim that

they felt unable to go outside because of the bird next door. The long view of the area

was taken from a public access and did not identify which was the complainant's

house.

According to TVNZ, the Bowens did not ask that their names be withheld, and it

believed it "stretches credulity" to suggest that Mrs Bowen gave her name thinking it

was for "administration purposes".

TVNZ also advised that after the broadcast, Mr Bowen telephoned the reporter.

According to the reporter, his concern was not so much with the upcoming sale of his

house, but with the fact that the reporter failed to make use of a tape recording of the

bird's noise prepared by Mr Bowen. In the call, Mr Bowen also expressed upset at

their name being used. Apparently, the reporter reminded Mr Bowen that she had

asked for his wife's name in his presence.

When it considered the matter of privacy, TVNZ drew the Authority's attention to

the fact that the item could not have been produced without the cooperation and

consent of the Bowens. It pointed to privacy principle (vii) which reads:

(vii) An individual who consents to the invasion of his or her privacy cannot

later succeed in a claim for a breach of privacy.

TVNZ denied that any breach of the Bowens' privacy occurred.

Mr Bowen's Final Comment

Mr Bowen did not respond to the invitation to make a further comment.