BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

In the context of a discussion about driving habits on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 14 January 1999, the show’s host described how that morning he was passed at speed by a car which then crossed all three lanes to exit from the motorway. He identified the car by its personalised license plate, saying it was lucky there was not much traffic on the road as that sort of driving contributed to disaster on the roads.

R, owner of the car, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast was abusive and an invasion of his privacy. He denied that he had been driving dangerously, and pointed out that the alleged incident occurred at about 6.15am when no other vehicles were in sight. However, he said, even if the incident was as reported, it was inappropriate to discuss the details on radio.

The Radio Network responded that the host reported accurately what he had seen on the road. It argued that anyone with personalised license plates was "clearly advertising something about themselves" and that the plates seemed to be inconsistent with the concept of privacy. It added that there was a well known "dob-in" campaign encouraged by the Police to report bad driving.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to 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.

The topic of bad driving habits was discussed on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 14 January 1999. The host said that morning he had witnessed driving of the sort which contributed to disaster on the roads. He identified the car as a red sports car and gave the name on its personalised license plate. The car, he said, had overtaken him at a fast speed and gone into the far right lane and then proceeded to cross back over all three lanes to take the exit off the motorway.

R, owner and driver of the car, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the disclosure, without his knowledge or consent, was an invasion of his privacy. He said he did not hear the broadcast himself, but was informed by others who had heard it.

When it was asked to respond to the complaint, TRN provided an explanatory note from its staff, which noted that the discussion had arisen in the context of the high road toll and driver behaviour. The host then recounted an incident which had occurred that morning as he was driving to work.

TRN also made the observation that any person with personalised plates was "clearly advertising something about themselves". It suggested that was inconsistent with privacy. Further, it noted, there was a well known "dob-in" campaign encouraged by the Police to report bad driving. In this case, it noted, the host had reported what he had seen on the road. It could be argued, it said, that he was doing a public service.

In his final comment to the Authority, R maintained that in no way could it be said that he drove dangerously. He stated that he made it a number one priority to drive safely according to the conditions of the road at the time, and noted that the incident occurred at 6.15am, and that there were no other vehicles in sight. He objected to the fact that thousands of listeners, including his family and friends, were told that his driving was the kind which contributed to disasters on the road.

With respect to the points made by TRN, R responded that he did not buy the license plates himself, and that they were bought by his family. He said as a result of this incident, he would not recommend personalised number plates to anyone.

R said he was well aware of the "dob-in" campaign. However, he pointed out, that was handled by the proper authorities, and the recipient of the warning would not be identified on radio or television.

R concluded by noting that the incident had caused him and his family a great deal of stress, and had placed him in an unenviable position.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority begins by noting that it has decided to suppress R’s name, so that the incident, which has already caused him some embarrassment, should not cause him further distress.

When it deals with privacy complaints, the Authority applies seven privacy principles which were set out in an Advisory Opinion dated 6 May 1996. It considers principles (i), (iv) and (vi) may be relevant to these facts. They read:

(i) The protection of privacy includes protection against the public disclosure of private facts where the facts disclosed are highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

(iv) The protection of privacy also protects against the disclosure of private facts to abuse, denigrate or ridicule personally an identifiable person. This principle is of particular relevance should a broadcaster use the airwaves to deal with a private dispute. However, the existence of a prior relationship between the broadcaster and the named individual is not an essential criterion.

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

The complainant has alleged that the broadcast of details of his vehicle, including the personalised license plate, breached his privacy.

The Authority is not persuaded that there has been a breach of R’s privacy in this case.

First it notes that there was insufficient information available to necessarily infer that the owner of this distinctive car was in fact the driver on this occasion. In that respect there was no personal identification of the complainant.

However, even assuming that to those who knew the complainant and his movements on that day, the connection was clear and sufficient to identify him personally, the Authority is not convinced that private facts were disclosed in the broadcast. It notes that R’s car was observed on a public road and that its colour and license plate were facts which would have been discernible by any other person. Similarly, R’s driving manoeuvre, when he was said to have crossed three lanes of traffic, was a public fact observable by any other person on the motorway at that time. Accordingly the Authority concludes that no private facts have been disclosed in the broadcast and it finds no breach of privacy principle (i).

Next it applies privacy principle (iv). That principle protects against the disclosure of private facts to abuse or ridicule an identifiable person. For the reasoning given above, the Authority concludes that the facts revealed were not private facts. It makes no finding on whether the broadcaster used the airwaves to abuse, denigrate or ridicule R.

The Authority notes the broadcaster’s argument that the manner of R’s driving was a matter in the public interest. It points out that had a privacy breach occurred, it would have then examined the complaint to ascertain whether the public interest defence applies. It makes no finding on this occasion since no privacy breach occurred.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
19 March 1999

Appendix

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

1.    R’s Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – received
      22 January 1999

2.    The Radio Network’s Response to the Privacy Complaint – 2 February 1999

3.     R’s Final Comment – 10 February 1999