BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The Schlaepfer family tragedy was referred to in "Top Gun", a 20/20 item which

profiled Inspector Ash Edwards, the retiring leader of the Auckland Armed Offenders

Squad. It was broadcast on TV3 between 6.30–7.30pm on 21 September 1997.

Referring to her involvement with the Schlaepfer family at the time of the tragedy as

Victim Support Group Co-ordinator, Ms Clark complained to TV3 Network Services

Ltd, the broadcaster, about the screening of some archive footage which showed an

aerial view of the bodies of some family members, and the child who survived the

killings.

TV3 upheld the complaint about the aerial shot, and explained that the footage had

been replaced when the item was re-screened on 27 September. It also apologised to

the family for its use, and reported that the footage had been "tagged" to ensure that

approval was given by editorial management before its use again in the future.

Dissatisfied with the action taken by TV3, Ms Clark referred her 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 that the action

taken was insufficient.

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.

Inspector Ash Edwards was profiled on TV3's 20/20 on his retirement from the

Police. His service had included 15 years as head of the Armed Offenders Squad in

Auckland, and the Schlaepfer family tragedy was a well publicised event in which the

squad had been involved. The item included some footage from this event, including

an aerial shot of some bodies near the house, and a shot of the child who survived the

massacre with a woman in a car as she was taken from the scene.

Explaining that she was involved with Victim Support at the time of the tragedy and

had remained in touch with the family, Ms Clark complained informally to TV3. She

expressed concern on behalf of the family about the aerial footage of the bodies.

Pointing out that the surviving child, Linda, was trying to come to terms with the

tragedy as best she could, she was also concerned, she wrote, about the footage of

Linda and herself in the car. Focussing on the aerial footage, Ms Clark sought an

assurance that it would not be used again, and also an apology for its use on the next

broadcast of 20/20.

TV3 advised Ms Clark that the aerial footage would be replaced by film which did not

show the bodies in a re-screening which was rescheduled for the near future.

Furthermore, it wrote, the footage in question had been "tagged" to require editorial

management approval before its re-use.

On receipt of this reply, Ms Clark complained formally to TV3. As there had been

no prior consultation before using material which showed the dead bodies and Linda

with her in the police car, Ms Clark alleged a breach of standard G17 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice. It reads:

G17  Unnecessary intrusion in the grief and distress of victims and their families

or friends must be avoided. Funeral coverage should reflect sensitivity and

understanding for the feelings and privacy of the bereaved.

Broadcasters must avoid causing unwarranted distress by showing library

tape of bodies or human remains which could cause distress to surviving

members. Where possible, family members should be consulted before the

material is used. This standard is not intended to prevent the use of

material which adds significantly to public understanding of an issue

which is in the public arena and interest.

TV3 upheld the complaint, referred to changes made before the programme was re-

screened, and advised that news and current affairs editors, and archive staff, had been

reminded of the requirements of standard G17.

Ms Clarke reviewed these events when she referred her complaint to the Authority.

As she believed that any future use of the aerial footage would intrude on the family's

privacy and dignity, she sought an order for its destruction.

In its report to the Authority, TV3 repeated its earlier explanation to Ms Clarke that

the offending footage had been tagged to ensure that it was not re-used without prior

approval from senior editorial management. It pointed out that it had met the

concerns in the original complaint, and considered that an order for destruction for the

footage – which it described as being akin to the burning of books – was beyond the

Authority's jurisdiction.

In her final comment, Ms Clark noted that "tagging" as a method of control was

TV3's suggestion – not hers. She also observed that the re-screening retained the

footage of Linda and her, and included aerial footage of the covered bodies.

The Authority agrees with TV3 that the broadcast on 21 September 1997 of the aerial

footage of the bodies breached standard G17. The Authority was advised that the

footage was replaced when the item was re-screened on 27 September, and

appropriate staff were reminded of the requirements of the standard. The Authority

appreciates that the footage shown on 21 September would have been distressing for

the family, especially as they would have been familiar with it. However, the

Authority observes that viewers who were not familiar with the material may well

have failed to distinguish the bodies with any certainty in the footage complained of,

given its brevity. The replacement by TV3 of that material for the re-screening was,

in the Authority's opinion, a responsible action, and adequately answered its

obligations on that occasion.

Turning to the footage of Linda being taken from the scene in a car with Ms Clark, the

Authority notes that TV3 did not deal with this aspect of the complaint. But the

Authority is of the view that the correspondence from Ms Clark clearly raises an

issue of compliance with standard G17, and considers that TV3 should have

responded to this in determining the complaint.

Given the requirements of this standard, the Authority has approached this aspect of

the complaint by asking whether the footage of Linda and Ms Clark involved

"unnecessary intrusion".

The Authority notes that the footage was brief, that the child was not easily

identifiable and her distress was not used in an exploitive way. In determining

complaints which allege a breach of standard G17, the Authority needs to keep in

mind that this standard is principally for the benefit of the family involved. However,

significant events such as serious crime can be regarded as "public" events as well, and

a balance must be achieved between personal sensitivity and the public interest.

Moreover, the family will likely have a heightened awareness of content and that, too,

needs to be balanced against the impressions left with the general viewer.

Having taken all these matters into consideration, the Authority concludes that the

brief footage of Linda and Ms Clark in the car did not involve the "unnecessary

intrusion" required for a breach of standard G17. Further, the item recorded the

successful rescue of the child who had been at risk, which was an important

ingredient of the story particularly from the point of view of the policemen who was

the subject of the programme.

Ms Clark sought the destruction of the aerial footage shown during the broadcast of

20/20 on 21 September. However horrifying archival footage may be, the Authority

agrees with TV3 that destruction or confiscation would be undesirable, and would not

be likely to be in the public interest.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
5 March 1998

Appendix

Ms Clark's Informal Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 22 September

1997

Raewyn Clark of Manurewa complained informally to TV3 Network Services Ltd

about some of the footage included in a 20/20 item broadcast on 21 September 1997

between 6.30–7.30pm. The item had profiled Inspector Ash Edwards on his

retirement from the Police. His service in the force had included 15 years as head of

the Auckland Armed Offenders Squad.

The item referred to the Schlaepfer family tragedy, and Ms Clark objected to the

footage which showed an aerial view of the bodies of some family members, and

which showed the surviving child.

Explaining that she was co-ordinator of the Victim Support Group at the time of the

tragedy, Ms Clark said that she had kept in touch with family members over the past

five years. She wrote:

Showing the footage of the bodies again after all this time was totally

inappropriate, the family have told me themselves that the worst part of the

aftermath for them, was the television aerial footage showing their loved ones

bodies. Concerns relating to the Police tape of Linda's conversation is another

issue and if this should be used by the media in future it would cause the family

more distress. I hope this does not occur.

The main issue is the fact that the surviving child Linda is managing well and we

all need to be aware of the effects this particular footage has on her.

Ms Clark considered that TV3 had not shown any respect or empathy for the people

affected by the tragedy. As for Linda and her sister, Ms Clark stated:

There is a survivor in all of this, a young girl who has to live life in the most

comfortable way she can. There is her sister and her care givers to consider just

as seriously. I believe that we all have been extremely patient and believed that

what was shown on TV3 last evening would never eventuate. How naive of me

and how disappointing to see that footage again. I did not take any action to

ensure that this would not happen, most remiss on my part.

Ms Clark sought an assurance that the footage would not be used again, that greater

care be exercised in using the film in future, and that TV3 ensure that there was no

recurrence of the use of this tape. Moreover, she asked that in future archival footage

of the incident should avoid showing the family's bodies. In addition, she asked that

TV3 broadcast an apology on the next edition of 20/20.

Although she was no longer involved with Victim Support, Ms Clark asked that her

name remain confidential in view of her ongoing involvement with the Schlaepfer

family.

TV3's Response to the Informal Complaint – 24 September 1997

Ms Clark's letter of 22 September was addressed to the Executive Producer of 20/20

(Mr Keith Slater), and he advised that he had replaced the video footage in question

with a view of the house which did not show the bodies, in preparation for re-

screening the item on Saturday 27 September.

Further, tags had been placed on all the footage objected to. This would ensure that

its use in the future would require prior approval from senior editorial management.

He was grateful that Ms Clark had passed his telephoned apology on to the family.

Ms Clark's Formal Complaint to TV3 – 25 September 1997

On receipt of the Executive Director's letter of 24 September, Ms Clark advised that

she now wanted her concern to be treated as a formal complaint which alleged a breach

of standard G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice as those involved

were not consulted prior to the use of the footage. She advised "the showing of dead

bodies and myself with Linda in the police car caused to distress to us all". Ms Clark

sought, she said, to ensure that the footage was not screened again, and that those

involved would be consulted on its future use.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 28 October 1997

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standard, TV3 referred to the changes

made to the broadcast prior to the re-screening on 27 September, and the apology

offered by 20/20's Executive Producer.

TV3 upheld the complaint that the broadcast on 21 September breached standard

G17, and advised that news and current affairs editors and archive staff had been

reminded of the requirements of standard G17.

It asked Ms Clark to advise the Schlaepfer family of its decision.

Ms Clark's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 10 November 1997

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Ms Clark referred her complaint to the Authority

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

Ms Clark provided the following background:

There was a telephone conversation between myself and Mr Keith Slater on

Monday the 22 September 1997. Mr Slater did say that he would undertake to

have the offending footage removed from the programme in time for the re-

screening of the programme on the 27th September 1997 and requested I put my

request in writing (informal). It is true (see TV3's response to my formal

complaint) that I indicated that I did not want to take the matter further

provided I received assurances that the footage would not be used again in the

future. . . . 

We were not happy with the assurance, and when the programme was re-

screened on Saturday 27th September, TV3 used the same footage showing

myself and Linda in the Police car, and again used aerial footage showing bodies

under cover.

Because TV3 had not consulted them before using the footage, Ms Clark said that she

had been asked by the family to continue with the complaint.

Explaining that the family wished to avoid further media coverage for the sake of the

girls, Ms Clark said the family's aim was the destruction of all offending aerial

coverage. She concluded:

In my view, at the time of the tragedy, the aerial footage was a breach of

privacy, the family did not receive the dignity and respect deserved at the time

and this is something that we have all had to live with.

In regard to her earlier request for name suppression, she wrote:

I understand that the decision of the Authority will be made public, I am

prepared to accept that my name may be used, I will accept responsibility.

TV3's Report to the Authority – 10 December 1997

Emphasising that Ms Clark's complaint was upheld, TV3 said that it appeared she

now sought both an opportunity to give oral submissions, and an order for the

destruction of the "offending aerial footage".

TV3 replied:

The Standards Committee wishes to place on record that Ms Clark did not in her

original complaint seek that which she is now seeking through her referral to the

Authority. It appears to the Committee to be becoming common for

complainants to attempt to use their referral to the Authority as an opportunity

to reconsider the original complaint and to adjust or add to the remedy they

sought in making the complaint in the first place.

TV3 considered that it was the Authority's function to stop this practice by noting

that the original remedies sought had been granted. Moreover, it believed that the

material was adequately tagged. However, as the Schlaepfer case would remain of

public interest for some years as one of the country's worst mass killings, and would

remain of relevance for many years to come, any archival material had potential

ongoing relevance. To have this material destroyed, TV3 argued, would be "akin to

the burning of books". TV3 also expressed the opinion that the Authority did not

have the jurisdiction to order such destruction or confiscation.

Ms Clark's Final Comment – 15 December 1997

Ms Clark made six points:

1)  The complaint had expressed concern at the aerial footage, and "tagging" as

a method of control of the footage – the remedy offered by the broadcaster – had

been at TV3's own suggestion.

2)  The initial complaint raised the point that there was no consultation prior

to broadcast, and this aspect continued to be of concern.

3)  The second screening included aerial footage of the covered bodies, as well

as the footage of Linda and her.

4)  Ms Clark questioned whether it was appropriate to use the footage

complained about in an item about a retiring police officer.

5)  TV3 had given no assurances about future consultation as required by

standard G17.

6)  The request to give oral submissions was made in good faith to explain the

stress and anguish caused by the programme. Ms Clark apologised should

the request have been inappropriate.