BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The forthcoming Parole Board hearing for Paul Dally was dealt with during an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One beginning at 7.00pm on 18 August 1999. Mr Dally had pleaded guilty to the murder of 13 year-old Karla Cardno in 1989, and the item included an interview with Mr Mark Middleton, Karla’s stepfather. In response to some questions as to why he had asked the Parole Board to release Mr Dally, Mr Middleton said that it provided the opportunity for him and his friends to "take him".

R J Healing complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reporter’s questions were insensitive, and had encouraged a distressed man into making statements he might later regret.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint as a breach of the standards relating either to taste or fairness. It said that Mr Middleton was given the opportunity both at the time and during a subsequent interview to modify or retract his threat, but had declined to do so.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, R J Healing referred the 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 which is listed in the Appendix. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An item of Holmes broadcast on 18 August 1999 referred to the murder of 13 year-old Karla Cardno in 1989. It reported that Paul Dally, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for her murder, was shortly to make his first appearance before the Parole Board. The item reported that Karla’s mother had written to the Parole Board to oppose his release.

The item also included an interview with Mr Mark Middleton, Karla’s stepfather, during which he warned that should the Parole Board release Mr Dally, he would "take him".

R J Healing complained to TVNZ that the reporter’s conduct showed a lack of judgment. The reporter had asked some questions about what he would do should Mr Dally be released. The complainant noted that when Mr Middleton hesitated in his response and expressed concern that the reporter might object to the answer, her response to Mr Middleton had been to say "Try me". R J Healing objected to both the reporter’s comment and her manner, and contended that the reporter had:

... encouraged the obviously distraught step-father into making public statements which in hindsight he may later regret.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G2 and G4 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. They require 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.

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

TVNZ was of the view that it was in the public interest to question Mr Middleton as his action in writing to the Parole Board seeking the release of Mr Dally called for an explanation.

TVNZ did not accept that the reporter’s comment was provocative. Rather, it wrote, Mr Middleton seemed concerned that a public threat on television might break the law and he "seemed reassured by the reporter’s expression ‘try me’". The following questions, TVNZ continued, provided Mr Middleton an opportunity to modify his threats, and TVNZ observed:

The [Complaints] Committee found no evidence that Mr Middleton was badgered into making his statement or that he was denied in the interview the opportunity to modify his stance.

The interview, it noted, was pre-recorded which meant that had Mr Middleton subsequently regretted his comment he could have asked Holmes to reconsider its broadcast. No such request came.

Moreover, TVNZ noted, Mr Middleton appeared on an item on Holmes some two weeks later when he was urged by the Commissioner for Children to withdraw his threats. He had declined to do so. In TVNZ’s opinion, Mr Middleton had no regrets in hindsight over his remarks broadcast on 18 August, and it wrote:

The programme had rather provided him with a vehicle with which to revive the public debate over the adequacy of sentences for violent crime in the context of a particularly vicious killing which, it was shown, had caused Mr Middleton a decade of unrelieved distress and which at the time of the event had shocked the country.

TVNZ did not accept that the interview strayed beyond accepted standards of good taste and decency, or had been unfair to Mr Middleton. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, R J Healing remained of the view that Mr Middleton had been treated unfairly, and had been led into making statements which resulted in his being charged with a criminal offence.

The interview, R J Healing wrote, had been insensitive bearing in mind Mr Middleton’s distress and intense feelings. The complainant repeated the specific concern about the reporter’s words "Try me".

TVNZ advised that it had nothing to add to its report to the Authority.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority considers that standard G4 is the appropriate standard under which to assess the complaint. It does not consider that the item threatened standard G2. Rather, in view of the matters raised by Mr Healing, it approaches the complaint by questioning whether the reporter was fair in the way she dealt with Mr Middleton.

From the outset, the Authority acknowledges that the reporter’s approach contained some degree of provocation. It notes that Mr Middleton hesitated before his response, and that his answer has had consequences for him. It has been reported that he has lost the care of a foster child, and he has been charged with threatening behaviour. Nevertheless, the Authority does not accept that the reporter’s comment of "Try me" dealt with Mr Middleton unfairly.

In reaching this decision, the Authority believes that the reporter would likely have been fully aware of Mr Middleton’s attitude towards the possible release of Mr Dally, and that the approach she adopted would allow Mr Middleton the opportunity to express his attitude. The Authority also notes that the interview was pre-recorded, and that Mr Middleton could have approached TVNZ before the item was broadcast if he felt he had been provoked into making a statement he might later regret. TVNZ advised that he did not do so and, in fact, that he had repeated his threat on television subsequently. Mr Middleton is an adult and, in the Authority’s opinion, fully capable of understanding the consequences of making such a statement publicly.

In these circumstances and while repeating the point that there had been an element of provocation, the Authority concludes that the reporter’s approach did not breach the fairness requirement in standard G4.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 November 1999

Appendix

In determining the complaint the Authority has considered the following correspondence received from the parties.

1.   R J Healing’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 19 August 1999

2.   TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 29 September 1999

3.   R J Healing’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 9 October 1999

4.   TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 19 October 1999

5.   R J Healing’s Final Comment – 21 October 1999