BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Police were hunting an armed robber who had shot a security guard in a shopping centre, according to news reports on 3 News and Nightline broadcast on TV3 on 26 July 1999. Footage accompanying the item showed police Armed Offenders Squad members approaching a house in Auckland.

S, C and E complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that their privacy was breached because the footage showed their home. They reported that their home was recognisable to friends and family and that they and their children were upset and distraught at the implication they could be linked to the robbery.

TV3 responded that the footage of the property search was carefully edited to ensure that the street and house were not identifiable to the general public, and the occupants were not identified. It suggested that only viewers who lived in the street or who were known to the occupants would have been able to identify the house, and they would have already known about the police activity. It emphasised that the filming took place from a public road, and that there was a legitimate public interest in the story. It declined to uphold the complaint.

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

Decision

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

A security guard was shot and wounded in an incident at a West Auckland shopping centre. The offender escaped and was being pursued by the police Armed Offenders Squad, according to a news report broadcast on 3 News and Nightline on 26 July 1999. The item included interviews with shoppers who had witnessed the incident, and footage of members of the Armed Offenders Squad seen to be cautiously approaching the door of a house. It was reported that some people from two houses had been taken away for questioning. A police officer was seen examining the inside of a car.

S, C and E complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the item, which showed their home, breached their privacy by linking them to the robbery and shooting incident. They said they were "shocked, distressed and angry" at what they perceived to be an implication in the report that they were being questioned in relation to the robbery and other crimes. They said that members of their family and friends had recognised their house and car on the news items, and that it caused their children great distress. In the days following the broadcast, the complainants said that they had had to explain to "friends, family, neighbours, teachers and strangers" that they were innocent of any wrongdoing. Emphasising that they had not given permission for the filming, they also complained that the footage included a full shot of one of the complainants sitting on the street "tearing her hair out in anguish."

When it responded to the complaints, TV3 applied the Authority’s Privacy Principles. It examined the complaint under principles (i), (v) and (vi). Those principles 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.

(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).

(vi) 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.

TV3 noted first that the items had not included any footage of a woman tearing her hair out in anguish. It observed that the items included footage of a property search by the Armed Offenders Squad. However, it argued, the occupants of the property were not identified and extreme care had been taken to ensure that the footage would not identify the street or house to the general public. It noted that no wide shots of the house or street were shown, and no street signage, letter box numbers or car license plates were shown. In its view, only viewers who lived in the street or who were connected to the occupants – and therefore would have known about the police activity anyway – would have been able to identify either the street or the house.

In addition, TV3 pointed out that the filming had taken place from a public road and that it concerned a story in which there was a legitimate public interest. Accordingly it found no breach of the privacy principles.

In concluding, TV3 expressed sympathy for the complainants at having suffered the trauma of having their home searched by armed police. It said it hoped they realised however that the news items were shown in the public interest and that the coverage had been done as carefully and sensitively as possible.

In their final comment to the Authority, S, C and E maintained that as their house was shown, they were identified. They rejected TV3’s argument that only their immediate neighbours would have recognised them, and questioned its assertion that no woman was shown suffering in anguish.

They also questioned why the television news crew was permitted to move freely around their street and property when the road was closed to the public.

In a separate statement, the family emphasised the humiliation and distress they experienced when their privacy was intruded upon. They again contended that they were identifiable because their letterbox, house and car were shown in the Nightline item. This they said, had changed their lives "beyond comprehension". The family argued that their home was not a public place to be filmed. They maintained that their consent should have been sought before filming.

The Authority’s Findings

In dealing with a breach of privacy, the first threshold for the Authority to consider is whether the subject was identifiable. Next, the footage broadcast must reveal private facts and, for a breach of privacy to occur, the facts disclosed must be highly offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person.

Identification is the first issue. Here, the footage included shots of the side of a brick house, said to be located in Central Auckland, which was seen being approached by members of the Armed Offenders Squad. The report stated that two houses had been raided and several people had been taken away for questioning. Footage in the Nightline item also included a wide shot which revealed the letter box and fence of an adjoining property and showed a woman sitting against the fence. Some paint colour of fences and buildings might be considered to be distinctive, as claimed by S, C and E.

The complainants have reported that people other than family and friends identified the house as belonging to them and therefore as being impliedly connected to the armed robbery. They also complained that the woman seen sitting on the roadside "tearing her hair out in anguish" was recognisable. TV3 maintains that the house would only have been identifiable to those who lived in the street, or friends who would have already known about the incident.

The Authority is not convinced that identification of the complainant family would have extended beyond those closely connected to them. It notes that the shots of the side of the house were brief and doubts that the house, although it had some distinctive features, would have been recognisable to those not closely familiar with the neighbourhood. As for the shot of the woman, it also notes this was very brief and that her features were not distinguishable. The Authority does not discern in her demeanour the degree of anguish alleged by the complainants, and notes that she appeared to be sitting near the side of the road. However, if – as the complainants contend – identification extended beyond their intimate associates, the Authority is required to assess whether, having been identified, the complainants’ privacy was breached.

The second stage of its inquiry is to ascertain whether private facts about the family were revealed, and if so, whether those facts were highly offensive to a reasonable person. The facts disclosed included that a security guard had been shot by an armed robber, and that the offender was being sought by police. Accompanying the footage of the Armed Offenders Squad approaching a house, the voiceover reported that some people had been taken away for questioning. It is reasonable that viewers would have made an assumption that members of this household were assisting police, and that those who had been able to identify the home could have guessed that members of the household were involved. However, in the Authority’s view, none of these facts were private facts as contemplated by the Privacy Principles. The approach by the Armed Offenders Squad could have been witnessed by members of the public, who would have been able to draw their own conclusions about the possible involvement of the family in the robbery. Furthermore, the Authority notes, the filming occurred from a public place. It therefore concludes that as no private facts about the family were revealed, there was no breach of their privacy as contemplated under the Privacy Principles.

Finally the Authority notes that the complainants have complained about additional filming which they claim took place inside their home, causing them considerable distress. It acknowledges that the process of both the police action and the filming were distressing to the complainants, but observes that this footage, if it exists, has not been broadcast. In those circumstances, it declines to determine this part of the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 November 1999

Appendix

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

1.    S, C and E’s Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 4 August 1999

2.    TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 26 August 1999

3.    S, C and E’s Final Comment – Received 30 September 1999