BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A car being stopped by a police officer in Queenstown, because the driver's vision

was impaired by windows which were frosted-over, was shown in an item on Police

Stop!, broadcast by TV3 on 26 August 1997 at 7.30pm. The face of the driver was

blocked out during the subsequent conversation.

C C of Queenstown, the driver of the car, complained to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy had been

breached when this footage was shown on the programme. She said that the efforts to

conceal her identity were not successful. She stated that she had been subsequently

approached many times by people who had seen the programme and recognised her

on the basis that her car and her voice were identifiable. This, she said, had caused her

a lot of stress.

Because it believed that reasonable efforts had been made to conceal C C's identity in

the item, which contained a road safety message, TV3 considered that the complaint

should not be upheld.

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.

Some aspects of policing in Queenstown were dealt with on Police Stop!, broadcast by

TV3 on 26 August 1997.

One particular concern was the safety problems apparent when frosted windscreens

were not adequately cleared before a vehicle was driven. As an illustration of this, a

police officer was seen to stop a car and show the driver how to remove frost easily

from the windscreen.

C C, the driver of that car, complained directly to the Authority that the item

infringed her privacy. She noted that her face was blocked out, but said part of the car

registration number was visible. Further, her voice was readily identifiable.

At the time, she wrote, she had asked the cameraman to stop filming, but he had

continued to do so. Before the item was broadcast, she had been unsuccessful in her

request to TV3 not to screen it. Following the broadcast, many people had

commented to her on the item, stating that they had recognised either the car or her

voice. Claiming that she had been publicly humiliated, C C said that she felt entitled

to compensation for the breach of her privacy.

When asked to comment on the complaint, TV3 explained that the item had been

filmed to illustrate a problem which occurred in Queenstown. It considered that

reasonable steps had been taken to conceal C C's identity in an item which carried a

road safety message.

When determining complaints which allege a breach of an individual's privacy in

contravention of s.4(1)(c) of the Act, the Authority applies a number of privacy

principles which it has developed. As the events contained in the item took place on a

public street and did not disclose offensive private facts, or facts which were designed

to ridicule C C, the Authority concludes that principles (i)–(iv) are inapplicable.

Principle (v) is possibly relevant. It reads:

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).

The Authority considers that it is not necessary to determine whether C C was

identifiable because the details of her car were shown, or through the broadcast of her

voice. Rather, it is of the view that the public interest involved in highlighting a

particular road safety problem in Queenstown was paramount. In reaching this

decision, it notes that while C C might well have been embarrassed at being filmed

when she was stopped, she was not penalised for her behaviour. Rather, she was

given advice on how to deal with a matter which could threaten road safety. In these

circumstances, the Authority concludes that C C's privacy was not breached in terms

of the Broadcasting Act.

Nevertheless, because C C was not named in the item and would not have been

identified by the vast majority of viewers, the Authority believes that it is

appropriate not to include her name in its decision.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
27 November 1997

Appendix

C C's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 8 September 1997

C C of Queenstown complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act about a programme in the series Police

Stop broadcast on TV3 by TV3 Network Services Ltd on 26 August at 7.30pm.

C C explained that, while stopped at a police road block in Queenstown, she noticed

that she was being filmed by a TV3 cameraman. She said that she had requested him

not to film but he continued. The programme Police Stop featured the incident. While

her face was blocked out, she said that her car was clearly shown including some

numbers and letters on her registration plate and her voice was heard. She pointed out

that no infringement note had been issued to her. She said that since the programme

she had been approached by people who recognised her car, making a joke of the item.

This, she said, had caused her some stress. The filming of the incident was

particularly upsetting, she wrote, given that the local Queenstown community was

small, and she was easily recognised as the driver of the car. She maintained that her

voice was also recognisable. She advised that prior to the broadcast she had written to

TV3 requesting that the item not be shown.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 9 October 1997

TV3 advised that the particular programme involved a Senior Constable discussing life

on the beat in Queenstown. He highlighted safety problems in the cold climate,

including frost on windscreens. To illustrate the dangers, a car was shown coming

down the hill with frosted-over windows. It was stopped and the Constable

explained to the driver how to clear the windows easily. Both the number-plate and

the driver were electronically masked. TV3 added that all the footage was taken on a

public road.

TV3 declined to uphold the complaint on the basis that reasonable steps had been

taken to cover C C's identity where the footage served as an illustration of the safety

message inherent in the item. It did not consider that any speculation by the local

community about her identity would result in the significant humiliation, loss of

dignity or injury to feelings required for a breach of privacy.

The Complainant's Final Comment - 21 October 1997

In her final comment, C C emphasised that she had not given TV3 her permission to

be filmed. She persisted in her arguments that she was identifiable. She stated that

the injury to her feelings had caused considerable stress for her and her family, and had

involved a breach of privacy.

If TV3 had wanted to film an item on road safety, an actor could have been used.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 13 November 1997

TV3 commented on four points made by C C. First, it said, as the incident was filmed

in a public place, her permission was not required. Further, she was disguised by

being pixilated.

Secondly, TV3 maintained that while C C could no doubt have recognised herself, her

identity would have been a matter of conjecture to others.

In relation to the stress which C C had said she had suffered, TV3 said that as the item

did not suggest any illegal acts on C C's part, it was unable to understand why the

incident would be stressful. Moreover, the incident had been shown in the public

interest.

Finally, TV3 pointed out that the part of the item involving C C was an aspect of the

story on a senior constable in Queenstown. It reiterated that showing drivers how to

remove ice was included in the public interest.

C C's Final Comment - 21 November 1997

Repeating that she was easily recognisable, C C stated that she was asked to remove

ice from the windscreen. She had not been shown how to do so. Moreover, as she

had stopped for the police, it was apparent that she could see. She believed that she

was entitled to compensation as she was readily identifiable in the small community in

which she had lived for 10 years.