BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A prison officer, accused of a sexual relationship with an inmate, was the subject of a 20/20 item entitled "A Pregnant Silence" broadcast on TV3 on 13 September 1998 between 6.30–7.30pm.

K complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached her privacy because it included footage of her house when the prison officer, who was her flatmate, was filmed leaving her home. She observed that its identity was clear because the house number was clearly shown. She argued that when personal details were given about the officer, it could have been incorrectly inferred that he lived at that address with his family. K sought an assurance that no more footage of her house would be shown as she had no connection with the story.

TV3 Network Services Ltd responded that as the story was clearly of public interest, it was appropriate that it approach the prison officer to seek his reaction to the allegations made against him, and to ensure that he had the opportunity to put his views. It also noted that the suburb and street were not identified. In any event, it concluded, there was a public interest in the matter which justified the filming.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A 20/20 item entitled "A Pregnant Silence" was broadcast by TV3 on 13 September 1998 beginning at 7.30pm. It concerned allegations made by prison inmates of improper conduct by prison staff, and reported that a prison officer had admitted to being the father of a child conceived in prison.

The programme principally focused on the case of a woman who claimed that a prison officer had begun a sexual relationship with her while she was in Arohata Women’s Prison. She was about to give birth to their daughter. While it was reported that the officer admitted the relationship, he did not appear on the programme. The only footage of him was a series of shots of him in his car leaving his home, and when he opened (and quickly closed) the door of his home to a reporter. Following that incident, a man was seen to come onto the property and ask the film crew to leave.

K complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached her privacy because she was the owner of the house where the prison officer was living. She wrote that she objected to footage of her home being shown on national television, as she had no connection with the story. She pointed out that there were sufficient identifying details shown, such as the house number, which would have enabled people to recognise the home as hers. In addition, she complained on behalf of her neighbour, the man who was seen in the item asking the film crew to leave. K considered that the broadcast breached his privacy as well.

TV3 advised that it had assessed the complaint in relation to the Authority’s Privacy Principles (iii) and (v). Those principles read:

(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 or 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.

(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).

In relation to Privacy Principle (iii), TV3 argued that as the reporter and the camera crew were investigating a story which was clearly in the public interest, it was appropriate that they approach the officer to seek his reaction to the allegations, and to give him an opportunity to put his views. It did not believe the approach was offensive or intrusive to the ordinary person. Further, it argued, K was not identified in any way. The only people shown were the officer and another person whom K identified as a neighbour. It concluded that the programme did not breach her privacy.

When it applied privacy principle (v), TV3 concluded that as the suburb and street were not identified, and because the house number was shown for only a brief time, there was nothing to indicate that the shot was taken at the prison officer’s home. In any event, it argued, the public interest defence cited in Privacy Principle (vi) applied. That provides:

Discussing the matter in the "public interest", defined as of legitimate concern or interest to the public, is a defence to an individual’s claim for privacy.

The Authority has some sympathy for TV3’s dilemma in presenting this story. It had received some startling allegations about the conduct of prison staff, and in order to fulfil its obligations to present a balanced story, and to be fair, it was bound to give those people an opportunity to comment. The Authority notes that it was clear from the footage, which showed TV3’s reporters attempting to seek his response, that the prison officer was a reluctant interviewee. However, by its inclusion of that footage, TV3 demonstrated that it had attempted – albeit unsuccessfully – to obtain the officer’s response.

It then turns to the complaint that the footage breached K’s privacy. The Authority first applies Privacy Principle (iii) to the facts. It finds no breach of that principle because it finds no intrusion into K’s privacy which would be offensive to an ordinary person. The fact remains that it was not only K’s home which was featured. It was also the home of the prison officer. He was being sought for a legitimate purpose, in order to obtain his response to serious allegations about him. The Authority concludes that it was not unreasonable that an attempt be made to contact him at his home. When he did answer the door, it was clear from his demeanour that the reporters were not welcome. They subsequently left the property. In the Authority’s view, these matters were all relevant to the story.

In applying Privacy Principle (v), the Authority concludes that no breach occurred because there was insufficient information given to identify the property, or its owner. Furthermore, there was a sufficient public interest factor in both the allegations made and the prison officer’s response as to warrant the broadcast of the material concerned.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
17 December 1998

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined the complaint:

1. K’s Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority 5 October 1998
2. TV3’s Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 5 November 1998
3. K’s Final Comment – 14 November 1998