BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Warning: This decision discusses issues of sexual abuse of children and suicide.

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that documentary 1 Special: The Lost Boys of Dilworth was inaccurate by not mentioning the denomination or titles of school chaplains involved in sexual abuse of students, or a complaint that the inclusion of re-enactments of memories of survivors re-traumatised victims of abuse, promoted sexual offending against children, breached privacy and was unfair to child actors involved. The Authority found that omission to mention the denomination or title of chaplains would not have materially altered the audience’s understanding of the documentary. The Authority also found that the inclusion of re-enactments did not breach the standards nominated, noting in particular that audience members (including survivors of abuse) were given appropriate information to make informed viewing decisions, no re-enactment depicted sexual violence and the offending of paedophiles was condemned throughout. The privacy standard was not breached. Other standards raised either did not apply or were not breached.

Not Upheld: Offensive & Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination & Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  On 14 April 2024 the documentary 1 Special: The Lost Boys of Dilworth aired at 8.30pm on TVNZ1. The documentary exposes the abuse of boys attending Dilworth School. The programme was rated 16-VLC and began with a warning ‘This programme deals with the subject of sexual abuse and suicide and may disturb some viewers’.

[2]  Much of the programme comprised interviews with survivors of abuse at the school, and several re-enactments of the interviewees’ childhoods were featured. These particularly focussed on their time at Dilworth School and the abuse they suffered there.

[3]  The programme was introduced as follows:

Mark Staufer: I was a border at Dilworth in the 1970s. This is the first time I've been back. It looks exactly the goddamn same. It's terrifying. I can smell it, you know. It's a little bit emotional. And remembering. It's kind of quite painful in a way, because I wish I knew then what I know now. 

[Onscreen text]: Dilworth School was founded in 1906 by James and Isabella Dilworth. Its mission was to provide an education to boys from disadvantaged backgrounds. [Image of a cross being carried shown] In 2020, New Zealand Police began Operation Beverly, an investigation into historic sexual abuse claims against Dilworth School.

Staufer:       That's the Chapel. Yeah, that's like the epicentre of fucking pain for me, that place. And I can hear the lock being turned. 175 sexually abused boys. We lost boys believe it's many more. 

[4]  The programme included the following relevant excerpts and scenes:

Mat Stapleton: The first night that I was there I woke up to getting a good hiding. [Children beating another in bed] They were senior kids from the other boarding houses. [Child in bed is slapped across the face]

Bully actor: You’re next loser. Sweet dreams.

Stapleton:   You become pretty fearful I'd say. After that happened. I wet the bed a couple of times, you know, that was something I'd never done before.  

Staufer:       They would have to line up with us to, to go up for breakfast and they'd have to carry their sheets.  [Scene of boy carrying sheets past other boys lined up]

Bully actor: Oi! Did you piss your pants, man?  [laughing]

Staufer:       They were just singled out these kids for peeing the bed and they'd be teased and bullied. The bullying was ever present. It was top down and there was no respite. And it wasn't just tolerated. It was encouraged by the very people who were supposed to be caring for us.  [adults smirking at the bullied child]

…

Stapleton:   I remember being pulled out of bed late one night because I hadn't brushed my teeth. They made us get in and out of these cold baths, but I remember the water overflowing. And you'd you get up to your neck, and you'd have to stand up. And they had all the doors and windows open, so it was pretty cold in there. Pretty windy. [Re-enactment of a child in a bath and standing while an adult watches] 

Stapleton:   We have these bars to the side where towels used to dry, and late at night the boilers would come on and heat these pipes up. Well, you got no clothes on, they make you go up and sit up on these pipes on your bare ass. You get burned and that. 

…

Vaughan Sexton: There was an incident where someone pulled my chair back in an assembly, and my reaction was to turn around and beat them. I wasn't a very big kid.  But you learned that if you were vicious enough, and keep going, then they wouldn't do it again. And I remember this kid, pounding his head into the ground. They had to drag me off. But if I hadn't done that, it would have shown as a sign of weakness. [Re-enactment of a child beating down repeatedly, victim not visible]

…

Stapleton:   There was a guy, he was bullied on by just anyone, really. He was just like - a walking target for everybody. We'd been sent up to his boarding house during prep to deliver a message. And while we were up there, we were told to hit him. So we gave him a hit. It was an older kid that was monitoring prep duty. And told us go over and give him a hit. So we go over and gave him a hit. He put up with a few years of that. So it's no surprise that he made an attempt to kill himself. But I remember seeing him. And I still see his face. Just the look on his face. That he was just abandoned. You know, no one's got his back.  

[Programme included a scene of a child with a rope staring at a tree, while a suicide attempt by a schoolmate is discussed]

…

[Several re-enactments of adults caning students. No child is visibly caned, but they are seen walking tenderly out of the room.]

Staufer:       There were masters who were very good caners. Some used to make you bend over and put your head under a desk. So that when they hit you, your head bumped the top of the desk. Some of them used to make you take your trousers down. So they were on bare flesh and some of them had different canes. This is the bad cane for you. Always welts, you know, always, on your ass. 

[Boy walking in corridor with red welts on upper thigh]

…

[Boy is seen crying in bed at night and approached by an adult who leads him away]

Staufer:       I spent a lot of my time crying. I was really sad. The surroundings were just so oppressive. It was awful. So I was very sad. And so I cried a lot. Empathetic ears didn't exist. And there was always a reason for it. I remember one night I was crying in bed and the housemaster found me. And sort of got me out of bed and walked me into his office, his room, and asked me, you know, what was going on? And I explained, I was sad, I miss my mother, you know, I was being bullied. Awful things were happening to me. And and he then said, well, you know, I've got to discipline you because this is because you're out of bed after lights out and I'm like, but you got me out of bed. And he was like, doesn't matter, bend over and so caned me. But with my pyjamas down. [Feet of boy shown with pants around his ankles, suffering impacts] I mean, you know, it's more painful. And I think for these guys who were caning, it was much more visual. You know. It was nothing like that. Turn them on. That was McIntosh.  

Child Actor: [Crying, returning to bed] Got six of the best.

Housemaster actor: And now talking. Come on now get up. That's six more and a week on Coventry.  

…

Staufer:       The guy who abused me is dead. So do I forgive him? Fuck no. Nope. But well, what would I do if he was alive? What would I want to happen to him? I maybe I'd kill him, but that's it. I don't have a lot of time for paedophiles, I'm afraid. You know, I think that prison's too good.

[5]  The programme discussed Reverend Peter Taylor in the following instances:

Stapleton:   [Scene of Actor portraying Reverend Peter Taylor showing trains to students, pictured in clerical clothing] There was a group of us got taken up to his place one night. He had like a train set-up. It was huge. Seemed huge anyway then. All these trains, you know he was a train nerd. And we all went up there in our pyjamas and dressing gowns and slippers. Probably about eight or nine of us maybe. And then checked out his trains, had a hot Milo.  

Child actor: Thanks Mr Taylor.

...

Stapleton:   Yeah, he approached me a little later. He was asking about how things were at home and, you know, how I was getting on with my mother and so forth. Anyway. There was some issues, and so he invited me to, come to his house after school because he lived on the grounds. And we'll discuss this further. And yeah. And sort of some things went down and. Yeah, at the time, I didn't realise what was happening. He was doing his thing, just sort of all under the pretext that we were praying together but, that wasn't happening… It's like he progressed. He sort of went further each time. And the last time after they happened, all these all these situations happened in his home. While his family were there. It was the third time. It was the most serious time when it was all over. And he was going to take me back to a boarding house. Went down to have the kitchen, and his wife called me to sit down, and I had dinner with them. Yeah, chicken and chips. And I'll always remember, I can't forget it here. And she's sitting there dishing up my dinner. In the end, you know, he was able to take me back down to my boarding house and then told me to go and have a shower and stood there, watching me have a shower. That's something he used to do quite often. Used to come down to our boarding house and watch the kids shower. I don't know what reason he had for doing this, but he seemed to get away with it.  

…

Staufer:       So the guy who groomed me was Peter Taylor. Who was, very good at it. He showed an interest in me and realised that I enjoyed writing and I was, you know, into literature and music… I think Taylor picked me out and knew that I was ripe for the picking. In a way. [Shortly after a scene is shown where an actor portraying Taylor in clerical clothing lays his hands on the legs of a child, then gets the child to sit on his knee] At first it was come and sit on my knee and he'd sort of put his arms around me and stuff. It was like, okay, this seems maybe normal. It progressed from me sitting on his knee to him kissing me and, you know, playing with my penis. And then it got worse from there in terms of, you know, being raped by him in the chapel. I freaked out. It took me a long time to process in terms of days and to realise that I had to, you know, do something about it. Yeah. It was shocking to me. I know I wasn't the only kid raped by this guy.  

…

Staufer:       I reported him to the headmaster, and, I was disciplined for him for "telling lies" about him and the headmaster then put me into Taylor's care. So he was my buddy from then on. Instead of doing anything about it, I was left with him. It just meant that he had me whenever he wanted, right? There was no escape. There was no escape from him. Because I had to report to him in the morning and in the evening. And there was no running away. I couldn't do anything to get away from this man. 

[6]  Religious quotes by the actor portraying Reverend Peter Taylor included: ‘And Jesus and his disciples shared a very, very secret, special bond.’; ‘12 disciples, very brave men. He changed the world after He went home.’; ‘Peter, I was named after Saint Peter the Rock.’; and ‘Jesus told them a secret. The secret.’

[7]  The programme featured footage of Reverend Ross Browne briefly at the end of the programme:

[Text on screen: Ross Browne Convicted Dilworth Sex Offender]

Browne:      [Pictured wearing clerical clothing] Dilworth is a place          where, if you need it, you can get a hug or something. You know it's a place which is that comfortable. 

The complaints

[8]  Michael Pui complained that the broadcast breached the accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• TVNZ’s reporting ‘of the abuses at Dilworth omitted the word “Anglican”, or references to “Anglican ministers”. The abusers definitely included Anglican ministers. If it had been a Catholic organisation, or the perpetrators Catholic ministers, it would be mentioned over and over again’.
• ‘at least two of the perpetrators were Anglican Ministers, namely REVEREND Douglas Ross Browne and REVEREND Peter Taylor. If they had been a Catholic priest or brother, TVNZ always put an emphasis on that fact - often stating "Catholic", or 'Reverend" or "Father/Brother" ad nauseam.’
• Reporting in this way was blatantly biased.

[9]  Pui also raised the balance standard on referral to the Authority.¹ In limited circumstances, the Authority can consider standards not raised in the original complaint where it can be reasonably implied in the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.² The balance standard is not directed at bias, but rather the inclusion of significant perspectives on controversial issues of public importance. As Pui’s complaint does not concern the omission of perspectives on a controversial issue of public importance, we do not consider the standard is reasonably necessary to imply to properly consider the complaint.

[10]  BH complained that the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, children’s interests, promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy, privacy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• ‘By re-enacting traumatic events, it may re-traumatise individuals who are already struggling to heal from past experiences. Additionally, the families of deceased persons may be subjected to unnecessary emotional distress by reliving these events through the lens of entertainment.’
• ‘the documentary presents a risk to the wider community by potentially glorifying harmful behaviours and encouraging imitation’, ‘and feeds into an appetite for cruelty and malice among viewers.’ ‘There is a danger that the documentary may provide perpetrators of abuse with undeserved public prominence, allowing them to project indifference and lack of regret. This could further perpetuate cycles of harm and empower offenders to continue their abusive behaviours.’
• ‘It also raises concerns about the breach of privacy for victims, even if they are not explicitly named.’
• ‘I am deeply concerned about the welfare of child actors and vulnerable adults cast in the re-enactments.’ ‘The long-term consequences of their involvement in this project, both emotionally and psychologically, cannot be overlooked.’

The broadcaster’s response

[11]  TVNZ did not uphold Pui’s complaint for the following reasons:

Accuracy

• ‘[TVNZ] agrees that the abusers included Anglican chaplains. However, Dilworth is a private school, with a Board separate to the Anglican Church. Dilworth is not an Anglican Church school.’
• TVNZ cited the following sections of the Dilworth Independent Inquiry:³
  • At page 41: ‘While Dilworth is not an Anglican Church school it has strong ties to the church...Tragically, over a 30-year period two Anglican chaplains and a temporary chaplain betrayed the trust and faith the school and the church encouraged students to have in them by sexually abusing scores of students between them. The church and the school are both responsible for this outcome.’
  • At page 36: ‘Most sexual and serious physical abuse at the school was perpetrated by boarding house staff, sometimes with a dual teaching role, outside the classrooms, in the boarding houses or during extracurricular activities.’
  • At page 38: ‘Some sexual abuse occurred when teachers worked with students in isolation from other adults and outside classroom hours. Music teachers, teachers taking choirs, chaplains and those leading school hobbies and club activities were all involved in the historical sexual abuse of students.’
• ‘While we understand your position that the religion of some of the abusers should be prominently named, we do not consider that given the offending was within the wider administration of Dilworth (a private school), and that offenders were 'mostly' school staff not clergy, that this was material to viewers' understanding of the issues at Dilworth.’

Fairness

• ‘This standard is designed to protect people and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcast. You have not made an allegation in this regard. No breach of standard 8 has been identified.’

[12]   TVNZ did not uphold BH’s complaint for the following reasons:

Offensive and Disturbing Content

• ‘While [TVNZ] understands that you found the content of the programme to be challenging, it provided an important voice for those victims who have survived and on behalf of those who didn't. The intention was to have those voices heard in a way that the Dilworth Independent Inquiry does not provide easy access to, in that a documentary is far more accessible than a 500 page document. This intention is a socially positive one and in the public good. The programme allows important speech which is protected by the Bill of Rights Act 1990.’
• ‘[TVNZ] finds that the programme played in an appropriate context with advisories and helplines and that viewers were provided with sufficient information in both the certificate and the advisories (including the warning) so that they could make an informed decision about whether to view the programme or not.’

Children’s Interests

• ‘You have complained about the welfare of the child actors in the programme. Children taking part in programmes are not a group which is protected under this standard. Your concerns about child actors are best considered under [the fairness standard].’
• ‘[TVNZ] finds that sufficient information was provided by TVNZ1 so that child viewers could be protected from potentially adverse material.’

Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

• ‘There was no element of promoting or condoning illegal or serious antisocial behaviour. The entire focus of the programme is that the child abuse which occurred at Dilworth was of the utmost concern.’
• ‘The programme was made with the involvement of victims’ groups and individual survivors, as well as the whanau of those who have died. The documentary provides a voice for those victims who have survived and on behalf of those who didn’t.’
• ‘[TVNZ] strongly disagrees that child sex abuse, bullying or violence are condoned or promoted or in any way ‘glorified’ in the programme. In the contrary, it shows the lasting damage that was done to these boys and the inexcusable misconduct of those who were supposed to protect them.’
• ‘The perpetrators and their actions are not glorified or promoted in the programme. There is no element or endorsement of child sex abuse, rape or violence. The documentary’s message is that this was abhorrent and wrong.’

Discrimination and Denigration

• ‘[TVNZ] notes that you have not made an allegation that any section of the community has be discriminated against or denigrated, and we did not identify any material like this in the programme.’

Balance

• ‘[TVNZ] does not agree that the 1 Special: The Lost Boys of Dilworth is controversial.’ ‘There is no doubt that boys were abused at Dilworth and that the abuses (rape, sexual assault, violence and bullying) were as described in the programme.’

Accuracy

• ‘You have not made an allegation that any material point of fact is inaccurate in the item. As discussed under Balance, above, there is no doubt that the rapes, sexual assaults and violence described in the programme occurred at Dilworth.’

Privacy

• No individual’s privacy was alleged to be breached.
• ‘[TVNZ] notes that a number of former Dilworth students discussed being abused and raped at Dilworth in the programme. Each did so with fully informed consent. It is not a breach of privacy where the person concerned has given informed consent to the disclosure, as they did in this case.’
• ‘We further note that there is defence to a privacy complaint to publicly disclose matters of legitimate public interest. A matter of legitimate public interest is a matter of concern to a significant section of the New Zealand population, which the discussion about widespread child abuse at Dilworth is.’

Fairness

• ‘The production company advises that they were mindful of the welfare of the actors in the programme.’
• ‘All the children had parents or chaperones on set. The content of the material being portrayed had been discussed at length with the parents of the children and with our on-set psychologist and how it was portrayed to them, and all cast, was carefully managed. A duty of care risk assessment and production plan was created at the outset of the production to manage all aspects of the production. We had an intimacy coordinator on set that played games with the kids and ensured they, and all cast and crew were properly managed and not put in any situations they weren’t comfortable with.’

The standards

[13]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard⁴ is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.⁵ The standard takes into account the context of the programme, and the wider context of the broadcast, as well as information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing or listening.

[14]  The children’s interests standard⁶ requires broadcasters to ensure children can be protected from broadcasts which might adversely affect them. Material likely to be considered under this standard includes violent or sexual content or themes, offensive language, social or domestic friction and dangerous, antisocial or illegal behaviour where such material is outside the expectations of the programme’s classification.⁷

[15]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard⁸ is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.⁹ Context, and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control, are crucial in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect.¹⁰

[16]  The discrimination and denigration standard¹¹ protects against broadcasts which encourage the discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

[17]  The balance standard¹² ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.¹³ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.¹⁴

[18]  The purpose of the accuracy standard¹⁵ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹⁶ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[19]  The privacy standard¹⁷ aims to respect, where reasonable, people’s wishes not to have themselves or their affairs broadcast to the public.¹⁸ Accordingly, it states broadcasters should maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual.

[20]  The fairness standard¹⁹ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.²⁰ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

[21]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[22]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.²¹

[23]  The programme almost exclusively focussed on the perspectives of survivors of Dilworth School. There is high value in the expression of their experiences, and strong public interest in the programme, which exposes the serious systematic harm caused to hundreds of boys at a school for decades. This means any harm caused by the broadcast must be of sufficient gravity to outweigh the valuable and important expression featured in the broadcast. We do not consider any harm raised by the complainants reached this level for the reasons outlined below.

[24]  We consider Pui’s complaint is best dealt with under the accuracy standard. We consider the arguments raised in BH’s complaint are best dealt with under the offensive and disturbing content, children’s interests, promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, privacy and fairness standards. We deal with the remaining standards in BH’s complaint at [63].

Offensive and Disturbing Content and Children’s Interests

[25]  Context is crucial in determining complaints under the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interests standards. The following contextual factors are relevant:

• The programme was rated 16-VLC. Programmes rated 16 may contain stronger material or special elements which are outside the M classification. They may contain a greater degree of sexual material, offensive language, realistic violence and stronger adult themes.²² Content rated 16 can be broadcast after 8.30pm.²³
• The warnings VLC mean V – contains violence, L - language may offend, C - content may offend.²⁴
• After each ad break, text reading ‘1 Special The Lost Boys of Dilworth 16VLC’ was displayed onscreen.
• The programme began with a frame stating: ‘This programme deals with the subject of sexual abuse and suicide and may disturb some viewers.’
• The programme ended with a frame with suicide and rape helplines for any distressed members of the audience.
• The programme aired outside of children’s normally accepted viewing hours, at 8.30pm.²⁵
• The programme had strong public interest, due to the large number of people affected, seriousness of the crimes, and cover-ups by those involved in the offending or otherwise in positions of power at the school.

[26]  Firstly, we note both the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interests standards address the impact of broadcasts on members of the audience, rather than any impacts on those featured in broadcasts (such as actors).

[27]  We do not consider the programme seriously violated community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offended or disturbed the audience. A key concern under the offensive and disturbing content standard is whether the audience is able to exert choice and control over their viewing.²⁶

[28]  We consider sufficient information was provided to the audience concerning the content of the programme, which allowed them to make informed choices about their viewing. Such information included the rating, the warnings, the frame informing the audience the programme would deal with sexual abuse and suicide, and the title of the documentary – given there is widespread public knowledge of historic sexual abuse at Dilworth after several years of high-profile news stories and an independent inquiry.²⁷

[29]  We acknowledge the programme may be re-traumatising to people who have experienced physical or sexual abuse, particularly as a child in similar circumstances to this. We note in particular the potential impact of re-enactments included in the programme, even if these did not depict acts of sexual violence. However members of the audience sensitive to these issues had access to the same information that allowed them to make informed viewing choices about whether to watch the documentary or not, and protect themselves from re-traumatisation.

[30]  We consider the 16VLC rating appropriate to signal the nature of most of the content and do not consider it should have aired in a later timeslot. We note it did not include an S advisory for sexual content that may offend, which would have been appropriate for the subject matter of sexual abuse.²⁸ However the inclusion of a warning that ‘This programme deals with the subject of sexual abuse and suicide and may disturb some viewers’ (together with other contextual factors listed above, including the name of the documentary) provided sufficient warning to viewers to avoid a breach of standards.

[31]  While the programme’s subject matter would have been disturbing for child viewers, it aired outside of children’s normally accepted viewing times and was appropriately rated for parents and guardians to make informed viewing choices for children in their care.

[32]  For the reasons above, we do not uphold BH’s complaint under either the offensive and disturbing content or children’s interests standards.

Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

[33]  The purpose of this standard is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.²⁹

[34]  This standard does not stop broadcasters from discussing or depicting criminal behaviour or other law-breaking. The standard is concerned with broadcasts that actively undermine, or promote disobedience of the law or legal processes.³⁰

[35]  The complainant has alleged the programme ‘potentially glorified harmful behaviours and encourage[ed] imitation’ and provided abusers ‘undeserved public prominence’.

[36]  We do not consider that any of the harmful behaviours depicted, including sexual abuse, violence or bullying, were glorified or encouraged by the broadcast.

[37]  Any public prominence given to abusers in the broadcast was only by way of publicly condemning their actions and providing the perspectives of survivors of abuse. The tone used to discuss the crimes was not positive, encouraging or humorous. Rather the tone throughout the broadcast evoked horror at the actions of the perpetrators, particularly in light of survivors’ descriptions of suffering, grooming and abuse.

[38]  The interviewees also described the abusers and their actions in extremely negative ways, for example:

‘The guy who abused me is dead. So do I forgive him? Fuck no. Nope… I don't have a lot of time for paedophiles, I'm afraid. You know, I think that prison's too good’.

[39]  The broadcast did not promote the behaviours depicted or encourage people to break the law. Rather it was condemning such behaviour and showing the lifelong impacts it has on survivors. On this basis we do not uphold BH’s complaint under this standard.

Accuracy

[40]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[41]  The harm that Pui is concerned about is that abusive Anglican chaplains at Dilworth School discussed in the documentary were not referenced as being of Anglican denomination or referred to by religious titles such as Reverend or Brother. The documentary notably featured the abuse perpetrated by Reverend Peter Taylor, and a brief clip of Reverend Ross Browne speaking. The Dilworth Independent Inquiry noted that ‘Tragically, over a 30-year period two Anglican chaplains and a temporary chaplain betrayed the trust and faith the school and the church encouraged students to have in them by sexually abusing scores of students between them. The church and the school are both responsible for this outcome.’³¹

[42]  The question for the Authority is whether omission of the Anglican faith of the chaplains, and their religious titles, was a material inaccuracy. A material inaccuracy is one that would significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the nature of the programme.

[43]  We acknowledge Pui’s point (regarding the contrast between this broadcast and the way Catholic clergy associated with sexual abuse are consistently identified by the media as Catholic priests). In this case, we do not consider omission of the term ‘Anglican’ from the programme would have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the programme. The documentary focussed on the way abuse happened within the school, and how the school failed to protect the boys and covered it up. As outlined in the Dilworth Independent Inquiry report, Anglican chaplains were not the sole abusers at the school. The report notes, ‘[s]tudents were extensively groomed and abused by Dilworth tutors, housemasters, chaplains, teachers, scout volunteers, staff friends and associates and friends of friends’.³² Many of the abusers were teachers at the school, and much of the cover-up of abuse has been blamed on senior management, such as Headmaster Peter Parr featured in the programme. The school was the focus. In this context, it would not significantly affect the audience’s understanding of abuse at Dilworth School to know the denomination of the Reverends involved.

[44]  For similar reasons, the omission of the title ‘Reverend’ was also unlikely to affect the audience’s understanding of the programme. It was apparent from the documentary that Peter Taylor was a chaplain – a clergyman in charge of a chapel.³³ In re-enactments he is pictured in clerical clothing, spoke of Christian religious beliefs, and is specifically noted as abusing children in the school’s chapel. When briefly featured, Reverend Ross Browne was also portrayed in clerical clothing. Adding their titles would not have changed viewers understanding of the events depicted.

[45]  We further note the high public interest in the programme and high value in according the survivors of Dilworth School a voice to share their experiences. Most of the programme conveyed the memories and perspectives of these survivors. In the absence of a standards breach causing serious harm, it is not the Authority’s place to decide for these survivors the language and terms they must use to describe their abusers or to control the broadcaster’s choices in that regard.

[46]  Having found the programme was not misleading, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the broadcaster has made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the programme.³⁴

[47]  Accordingly, we do not uphold Pui’s complaint under the accuracy standard.

Privacy

[48]  BH has alleged the programme breached the privacy of survivors of Dilworth School.

[49]  Generally, there are three criteria for finding a breach of privacy under the standard:

• The individual whose privacy has allegedly been interfered with was identifiable.³⁵
• The broadcast disclosed private information or material about the individual, over which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.³⁶
• The disclosure would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.³⁷

[50]  It is not a breach of privacy where the person concerned has given informed consent to any disclosure.³⁸

[51]  It is also a defence to a privacy complaint to publicly disclose matters of legitimate public interest.³⁹

[52]  The complainant has not identified any specific individual whose privacy they consider was breached. Below, we have considered the privacy of any individual students who were interviewed or discussed in the broadcast (named or otherwise).

[53]  First, with regard to the former students named and interviewed for the programme, we accept the broadcaster’s submission that informed consent was obtained for these individuals. Accordingly, we find no breach of privacy in respect of those individuals.

[54]  Other former students were described in the broadcast as follows:

• A victim of physical abuse at Dilworth who was discussed as being the subject of physical attacks, ‘a walking target for everybody’. Older kids told the younger kids ‘visiting his boarding house’ to ‘go over and give him a hit’ so they did. He ‘put up with a few years of that’ then attempted suicide. He had an ‘abandoned’ look on his face.
• A ‘not very big kid’ who pulled Vaughan Sexton’s chair back in assembly and was then beaten up with Sexton ‘pounding his head into the ground’ and needing to be dragged off.
• A fellow 12-year-old ‘co-conspirator’ of Staufer, who participated in a plan to escape, stealing scouts uniforms and, with Staufer, pretending to be ‘boy scouts on an expedition around New Zealand’ but they ran out of money and had to call the police who took them back – with both being caned.

[55]  We do not consider any of these individuals, or any others mentioned in passing in the broadcast, were identifiable beyond family and close friends who may be reasonably be expected to know about the matters dealt with in the broadcast.⁴⁰ We do not consider any wider identification was possible through these limited details.

[56]  In these circumstances, we need not go on to consider the remaining criteria outlined in paragraph [49].

[57]  For the reasons above, we do not uphold BH’s complaint under the privacy standard.

Fairness

[58]  The fairness standard states broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part in a broadcast.⁴¹ The commentary to the standard notes that individuals have the right to expect they will be dealt with fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.⁴² Individuals, and particularly children and young people, featured in a programme should not be exploited, humiliated or unfairly identified.⁴³

[59]  BH has alleged the programme was unfair to child actors featured in re-enactments by featuring them in sensitive and traumatising scenes. BH argued this risked long-term emotional and psychological consequences for the child actors. 

[60]  We do not consider the fairness standard is directed at concerns of this nature, which are focussed on the emotional and psychological safety and wellbeing of child actors. Nor is the Authority well placed to determine the appropriate treatment for actors in such circumstances. These are issues better addressed by other government agencies and authorities. We accordingly do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

[61]  We note TVNZ’s advice regarding the various steps the production company took to protect children on set during the filming of this programme.

[62]  Pui also raised the fairness standard in his referral to the Authority. However, he has not specified any individual or organisation he considered was treated unfairly, and on this basis the standard did not apply to his complaint.

Remaining standards

[63]  BH raised the discrimination and denigration, accuracy and balance standards on referral to the Authority. These standards did not apply to their concerns for the following reasons:

• Discrimination and Denigration: The complainant has not identified a specified section of the community they believe was denigrated or discriminated against, as contemplated by the standard.
• Balance: The complainant had not identified a controversial issue of public importance in the broadcast, or any significant perspectives they felt were missing.
• Accuracy: The complainant has not identified any facts they believe to be inaccurately portrayed in the broadcast.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
7 August 2024    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

Pui

1  Michael Pui's formal complaint to TVNZ - 14 April 2024

2  TVNZ's decision on complaint - 13 May 2024

3  Pui's referral to the Authority - 15 May 2024

4  TVNZ's further comments - 7 June 2024

5  Pui’s further comments – 3 July 2024

6  TVNZ confirming no further comments - 3 July 2024

BH

7  BH’s formal complaint to TVNZ - 17 April 2024

8  TVNZ's decision on complaint - 14 May 2024

9  BH’s referral to the Authority - 20 May 2024

10  TVNZ confirming no further comments - 7 June 2024

¹ Under section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority is only able to consider complaints under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster.
² Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
³ “Dilworth Independent Inquiry” Independent Inquiry into abuse at Dilworth School (September 2023)
⁴ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁵ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁶ Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Guideline 2.2
⁸ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
¹⁰ Guideline 3.1
¹¹ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁴ Guideline 5.1
¹⁵ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
¹⁶ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹⁷ Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ Commentary, Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
¹⁹ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²⁰ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
²¹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
²² Guideline 1.4
²³ Guideline 1.16
²⁴ Guideline 1.8
²⁵ Guideline 2.1
²⁶ Guideline 1.3
²⁷ See for example: Laura James “Scathing inquiry finds Dilworth hid sex abuse claims, silenced survivors” 1News (online ed, 18 September 2023); Andrew McRae “Dilworth School abuse survivors petition for mandatory reporting law” RNZ (online ed, 20 October 2022); Chelsea Boyle “Dilworth School investigation: Two men accused of indecent assault named” NZ Herald (online ed, 5 October 2020); Sally Wenley “Dilworth independent inquiry releases report into historical abuse at school” RNZ (online ed, 18 September 2023)
²⁸ Guideline 1.8
²⁹ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
³⁰ As above
³¹ “Dilworth Independent Inquiry” Independent Inquiry into abuse at Dilworth School (September 2023) at page 41
³² “Dilworth Independent Inquiry” Independent Inquiry into abuse at Dilworth School (September 2023) at page 5
³³ Merriam-Webster “chaplain” (accessed 5 July 2024)
³⁴ Van der Merwe and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-015 at [21]
³⁵ Guideline 7.2
³⁶ Guideline 7.4
³⁷ Guideline 7.3
³⁸ Guideline 7.10
³⁹ Guideline 7.9
⁴⁰ Guideline 7.2
⁴¹ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴² Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴³ Guideline 8.9