BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Recent pictures of a house, which was central to an enquiry about a murder which

occurred eight years ago, appeared on Nightline broadcast on TV3 on 23 June 1997.

The house at the time of the murder was well known for its use by drug dealers and

prostitutes.

Eleanor Kietzmann, the current owner of the house, complained to the Broadcasting

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

broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Limited, had not maintained standards consistent

with her privacy. She enclosed a letter written to TV3 in which she explained that the

pictures of her house made it recognisable, and in so doing caused her considerable

stress.

In response, TV3 advised that a picture of the house had been published in a recent

article on the homicide in the "NZ Herald". Further, it considered that the house was

not shown in the item to the extent that it was identifiable. In addition, it said, the

item also stressed that the story was about events in the past.

For the reasons given 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). In this instance, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Police investigations into a suspected homicide eight years ago in West Auckland were

dealt with in an item on Nightline broadcast on TV3 on 23 June 1997. According to

police reports, the item stated, the body of a man had been taken to a house in

Henderson, which had been well known then as a house used by drug dealers and

prostitutes. Recent pictures of the house were shown on the item.

Eleanor Kietzmann, the current owner of the house, complained directly to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority that the pictures of her house shown in the

broadcast had breached her privacy, resulting in unnecessary stress and possible

danger. She failed to see why the pictures added any public interest to the story being

related.

TV3 in response to the Authority advised:

* That the house had [prior to the broadcast] been shown accompanying an article in

the "NZ Herald". Any invasion of privacy would have occurred at that time.

* That in its view, while the house was clearly visible it was on screen for such a

short time that it was unidentifiable as the complainant's property.

* The house was photographed from the street, not private property.

* The story made it clear that it referred to events which occurred many years ago.

The events would not have been associated with the current occupier.

* The broadcast did not contravene the Authority's privacy principles.

Mrs Kietzmann's view, in response, was that the "NZ Herald" article did not clearly

identify her house, and in any case, that was a separate matter between herself and the

paper. She believed the broadcast, by contrast, did clearly identify her house and she

specifically mentioned the shot of her front window, which she felt must have been

taken from within her property.

The Authority, while understanding Ms Kietzmann's concerns, is unable to uphold a

breach of section 4(1)(c) of the Act, which provides:

4(1) Every broadcaster is responsible for maintaining in its programmes and

their presentation, standards which are consistent with -

(c) The privacy of the individual.

The Authority has developed a number of Privacy Principles which it uses in

determining privacy complaints. The most relevant to this complaint is principle iii)

which provides:

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 the intentional interference (in the nature of

prying) with an individual's interest in solitude and 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.

In the Authority's view, the broadcast was not in the nature of prying, the photos

having to the Authority's satisfaction been taken from outside Ms Kietzmann's

property, and it did not involve intentional interference with her interest in solitude

and seclusion.

The Authority does not consider that Ms Kietzmann's concerns are those related to

privacy. Ms Kietzmann is not in any way identified on the programme, and nothing

was revealed in the item that would link her personally to the house. While she may

have concerns about the effect of the broadcast on people's perceptions of the house,

it considers that those effects do not result from any infringement of her privacy.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 September 1997

Appendix

Eleanor Kietzmann's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority -

29 June 1997

Ms Kietzmann of Auckland complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that TV3 had failed to

maintain standards consistent with her privacy in an item on the Nightline programme

broadcast on 23 June 1997. The item concerned information which had come to light

about a murder committed eight years ago. The item advised that the body of the

deceased had been taken to a house in Henderson. Ms Kietzmann explained that she

was now the owner of the house, recent pictures of which were shown in the item.

Ms Kietzmann believed that the coverage of the house on the item was unnecessary in

the circumstances, and had caused her unnecessary stress and possible danger. She

enclosed a letter (dated 29 June) which she had sent to TV3.

In that letter, Ms Kietzmann complained to TV3 that the broadcast of the pictures of

her house had caused her great stress. She advised that the publicity had highlighted

her house as a well known sex and drug house, possibly she wrote, exposing her to

future risk. She advised that it prejudiced her enjoyment of her property and her

sense of well being, and was detrimental to her plans for selling the house.

She considered the shots to have been a gross invasion of her privacy and failed to see

how they added to any public interest in the story.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 11 July 1997

TV3 in response detailed the pictures of the house which had been screened on the

item, and provided a transcript of the voice-over. It made the following points:

_ The house had already been clearly identified some days earlier (Tuesday 10 June),

when a photograph of the house appeared alongside the lead story in the "NZ

Herald".

_ While the house was clearly visible in the TV3 story, such images were on screen

for just 0.05", which was insufficient time for members of the public to identify the

complainant's property.

_ There was plenty of legal authority which made it clear that it was not a breach of

privacy to film from the street. The TV3 Standards Committee had checked and

had been reassured that the television camera crew did not film on the property.

_ The accompanying voice-over made it clear that the story was dealing with events

that had taken place many years ago, and was written in past tense. TV3

maintained that viewers would not have associated the events with the current

occupiers of the house.

_ The image of the house, and in fact the entire story, did not contravene any of the

relevant privacy principles applied by the Authority.

_ If the complainant has suffered any invasion of privacy, it would have to have been

as a result of the "NZ Herald" story which, TV3 added, gave readers an

opportunity to view an image of the house at their leisure, and to absorb it.

TV3 argued that the Authority should decline to uphold the complaint.

Ms Kietzmann's Final Comment - 20 July 1997

Mrs Kietzmann believed that the house was identifiable as her house given the focus on

specific parts of it. She believed that the view which showed her front window shown

may have been taken from inside her property. On the other hand, the photo in the "NZ

Herald" did not identify her house but even if it had, she contended, that was a separate

matter.