BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Former Mercury Bay Community Board secretary and Thames Coromandel District

Council employee, Ms Linda Taylor-Dean, was named in a news item broadcast on

Coromandel FM at 9.00am on 20 January 1998. An outrigger canoe operator was

reported as having accused her of victimising him, and had hinted at her involvement in

the sabotage of one of his canoes. It was also reported that the police had no evidence

of any involvement by Council employees in the sabotage.

Ms Taylor-Dean complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached her privacy.

The Chief Executive Officer of Thames Coromandel District Council, Mr R L Scott,

complained to Coromandel Communications Ltd that the broadcast was inaccurate,

unfair, and that it had not been corrected speedily.

Explaining that the broadcaster had made all reasonable attempts to check the facts,

and that the item accurately reported the material received, the broadcaster declined to

uphold the complaints. It also considered that it had acted responsibility and

speedily.

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's response to the standards complaint, Mr Scott on

behalf of the Thames Coromandel District Council referred the Council's complaint to

the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaint from the Thames

Coromandel District Council, and orders costs of $500. It declines to uphold the

privacy complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the broadcast complained

about. They have also listened to a tape of the rebuttal and the apology and have read

a transcript of each of these three items. In addition, they have read the

correspondence (summarised in the Appendices.) On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The operator of Outrigger Canoes NZ, Maurice Fuller, tried to establish his business

in Whitianga for the summer of 1997–1998. While the Mercury Bay Community

Board approved his application for a Concession Licence, it declined to allocate him

the site he sought at Ohaka Bay. In late December 1997, Mr Fuller set up his

business on Buffalo Beach but was ordered to cease activities by the Council Officer

as he was operating without the appropriate concession licence. Over the New Year

period, one of the canoes was damaged in what Mr Fuller was convinced was "a

deliberate act of sabotage" of the business. As a consequence, in January 1998 he

decided to leave Whitianga.

Mr Fuller recounted his experiences and the reason for his decision in a letter dated 12

January 1998 to Mr Lindsay Scott, Chief Executive of the Thames Coromandel

District Council. He copied the letter to the Minister of Tourism, the Chairperson of

the Mercury Bay Community Board (Joan Gaskell), to Coromandel FM, and to the

Mercury Bay Sun. The opening three paragraphs of the letter stated:

... I wish to draw attention to events which lead to a decision to withdraw our

operation from Whitianga. Events I consider to be a form of personal

victimisation by one Linda Taylor-Dean, an employee of Thames Coromandel

District Council Community Board, and whoever's interest she acted upon.

I consider the sabotage of one of our vessels to be an extremely serious and

dangerous act – one which potentially endangered a life. It was upon this act

that the decision to withdraw from Whitianga was made.

            I wish it to be known that I personally, make no accusation against any person

for the act of sabotage, but one is simply left to ponder the possibilities.

The final two paragraphs read:

Before leaving Whitianga, I called in person, along with an independent local

witness, on Linda Taylor-Dean to inform her of the sabotage and our intention

to withdraw from Whitianga. I also informed her that, in my opinion, she

personally victimised us to the extreme, and I intended to make this known.

            I am grateful to the many people of Whitianga who gave us support and advice,

and helped us when we felt down – to them – our sincere thanks.

The letter was used as the basis for a news item broadcast by Coromandel FM at

9.00am on Friday 20 March 1998. The item in full said:

An outrigger canoe operator is creating a stink over what he calls victimisation

by an employee of the Thames Coromandel District Council. Maurice Fuller

first made the accusations against the Mercury Bay Community Board

Secretary, Linda Taylor-Dean last month. Since then he has started stirring at a

higher level and has sent letters of to the media, the Business Development

Board and the Minister of Tourism, Murray McCully.

            Also Linda Taylor-Dean has left the employ of the Thames Coromandel District

Council last week. In his letter, Mr Fuller hints that Linda was involved in the

sabotage of his outrigger canoes on December 30 but he never directly makes the

accusations, simply saying that he is left to ponder the possibilities.

            Whitianga Police say that they have got no evidence that anyone from the

Thames Coromandel District Council was involved with the sabotage.

Ms Taylor-Dean stated that the item had been broadcast on a number of occasions on

the morning of the 20th and, despite calls from the Council Chief Executive, and the

Chairperson of the Mercury Bay Community Board, a rebuttal only was broadcast

and then not until 1.00pm on the 20th. It had taken a letter from her solicitor, she said,

before an apology was broadcast. The apology, which was broadcast on a number of

occasions on 21 and 22 January, stated:

On Tuesday 20 January 1998 Coromandel FM broadcast a news item under

local news that could have inferred Linda Taylor-Dean was the person

responsible for certain actions that led to the withdrawal of Mr Maurice Fuller's

outrigger canoes from Whitianga.

Coromandel FM acknowledged that this news item was incorrect and it had no

factual basis to make such allegations.

Coromandel FM unreservedly extends its sincere apologies to Linda Taylor-

Dean for the distress and any wrong implications on her character and integrity

that this news item has caused. Coromandel FM also apologises for the breach

of privacy this broadcast caused.

           Coromandel FM also unreservedly extends its apologies to the Thames

Coromandel District Council for its incorrect implications on the Council's role

in this matter and the inference for Linda Taylor-Dean's leaving the Thames

District Council employment.

In her complaint to the Authority, Ms Taylor-Dean considered that the broadcaster

had breached the broadcasting standards relating to accuracy, objectivity and dealing

fairly with people referred to.

The standards matters were also raised in the complaint from Mr Scott, Chief

Executive of the Thames Coromandel District Council (TCDC). He alleged a breach

of standards R1, R5, R12, R13, R16 and R17. The first four require broadcasters:

            R1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs

        programmes.

            R5  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

        programme.

            R12  To correct factual errors speedily and with similar prominence to the

         offending broadcast or broadcasts.

            R13  To act responsibly and speedily in the event of a complaint and when an

          accusation of unfairness is found to be correct, to provide appropriate

          redress as early as possible after the original broadcast.

The other two read:

R16  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

R17  The standards of integrity and reliability of news sources should be kept

        under constant review.

On behalf of Coromandel FM, counsel Brent Impey advised that the broadcaster's

News Editor, on receipt of Mr Fuller's letter, attempted to contact Ms Taylor-Dean

and Mrs Gaskell. He was unsuccessful, and the item (reproduced above) was

broadcast at 7.30am, 8.30am and 9.00am on 20 January. Then, following telephone

calls from Mr Scott and Mrs Gaskell, a rebuttal story was broadcast at noon, 1.00pm

and 5.00pm on the same day.

The broadcaster also received a letter from a lawyer acting on behalf of Ms Taylor-

Dean. As a result, the apology (also reproduced above) was broadcast twice on the

afternoon of the 21st, and three times on the morning of the 22nd.

Mr Impey summarised the broadcaster's position:

Coromandel FM considers that the first item was broadcast in good faith.

Coromandel FM attempted to obtain a response from Linda Taylor-Dean and

TCDC before the item was broadcast but could not obtain a response. When

information was received from TCDC in rebuttal, that was broadcast. When

Linda Taylor-Dean through her lawyer made contact with the station correcting

the inference that she was responsible for the withdrawal of the outrigger canoes

from Whitianga, this was broadcast in the form of an apology.

In regard to the specific aspects of the complaints, Mr Impey did not accept that the

broadcast involved a breach of Ms Taylor-Dean's privacy as she was a public person

in her role as Board Secretary, and the withdrawal of the outrigger service was a matter

of public interest. He then addressed each of the standards nominated by the TCDC.

As the item broadcast on the morning of the 20th was an accurate report of the letter

received, and as it had acted responsibly on receipt of the complaints, Mr Impey

contended that none of the standards had been breached. In summary, he wrote:

Coromandel FM considers that it has acted properly in this matter. It

attempted to verify the story with TCDC and Linda Taylor-Dean but could not

obtain any contact. When the other side of the story was known, immediate

steps were taken to broadcast a rebuttal and later an apology. For this reason

the broadcaster considers that it has met its obligations.

In her response to the Authority on Coromandel FM's letter, Mrs Taylor-Dean

questioned the extent of the efforts made by the broadcaster to contact her and Mrs

Gaskell before the broadcast. She considered that the broadcaster had failed in its

obligations to check the facts prior to the broadcast and, she concluded:

... the effect that incident has had on me is one of loss of self-confidence and

extreme embarrassment. I have been fortunate to have had the support of those

that know me both personally and professionally but I find myself watching for

people's reactions when I am introduced to them – wondering if they heard the

story.

            I hope that no other private individual is subjected to the same.

When he referred the Council's complaint to the Authority, Mr Scott wrote:

Ms Taylor-Dean, as a Council employee was faithfully carrying out her duties

and implementing the specific policy direction as enunciated by the Community

Board. If that decision was wrong or unpopular I as Chief Executive can be

expected to respond to public criticism but not her. In my view it is

unreasonable for a radio station to implicate junior staff as a result of an

unpopular decision by a duly elected political body going about its lawful

duties. It certainly is unfair for CFM to implicate her solely on the basis of a

letter from a complainant. It is unfair in that the decision she was required to

implement was not hers, it was a Board decision. By being implicated in the

way she was caused her significant embarrassment and anxiety.

            It also concerns me that whilst the newsreader has contacted and apologised to

Ms Taylor-Dean no member of CFM Management has shown similar courtesy.
           

I therefore do not accept Mr Impey's explanation of the events and request that

the Broadcasting Standards Authority consider and rule on this matter.

In the report to the Authority on the broadcaster's behalf, Mr Impey reiterated the

points that Coromandel FM had broadcast both a bulletin in response to the outrigger

canoe company's view, and an apology. Coromandel FM, he explained:

Did not set out to offend Ms Taylor-Dean but to broadcast a local news story

originated by Mr Fuller.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority has set out the background to these complaints in some detail. It has

done so because the broadcast contained some serious implications about a named

person, Linda Taylor-Dean.

Ms Taylor-Dean was identified in the item as the secretary of the Mercury Bay

Community Board. When a ruling on a complaint which alleges a breach of an

individual's privacy, the Authority applies the Privacy Principles it has promulgated

by way of an Advisory Opinion. Principles (v) and (vi) are relevant on this occasion.

They provide:

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.

Although Ms Taylor-Dean was named in the broadcast, the item referred to her public

role and dealt with a legitimate news item. Accordingly, the Authority does not

consider that the requirement on a broadcaster in regard to respecting an individual's

privacy was breached on this occasion.

The Authority reaches this decision despite the broadcaster's acknowledgment in the

broadcast apology that the news item breached Ms Taylor-Dean's privacy. It does

not believe that the apology was written with the intention of referring to the concept

of privacy as interpreted as a broadcasting standards issue. This is apparent from the

broadcaster's response to the formal complaint where it is argued explicitly that the

broadcast did not breach the Authority's Privacy Principles.

Standard R5, in the Authority's opinion, encapsulates the situation which has arisen

with this complaint. Under standard R5, a broadcaster is required to deal justly and

fairly with any person referred to in a broadcast.

Ms Taylor-Dean was named in her former role as secretary of the Mercury Bay

Community Board. As the TCDC's chief executive wrote, her task was to implement

the policy laid down by the Board. When Mr Fuller disagreed with the Board's

decision, in his letter to the TCDC he criticised Ms Taylor-Dean personally.

In the Authority's opinion, CFM's action in broadcasting without substantiation the

allegations contained in that letter contravened the requirements in standard R5. The

contents of the letter amounted to a serious personal criticism which, given its nature,

needed to be substantiated or, at the least, put to the person concerned or the council

before broadcast. In addition, given that the accusation was one of criminal behaviour,

the Authority is not satisfied by the broadcaster's response that it tried

unsuccessfully to contact either the person accused, or the Board. The Authority

concludes that the broadcast was a breach of standard R5.

In view of this decision on standard R5, the Authority does intend to discuss

standards R1, R12, R13, R16 and R17 in any detail. It considers that standards R1,

R12, R16, and R17 are subsumed on this occasion by the finding on standard R5. In

view of the broadcast of, first, the rebuttal, and later the apology, the Authority does

not accept that standard R13 was contravened.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint from the Thames

Coromandel District Council that the broadcast of a news item on Coromandel

FM at 7.30, 8.30 and 9.00am on 20 January 1998 breached standard R5 of the

Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaints.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) or

s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

As will be apparent, the Authority considers that the broadcast complained about – a

broadcast containing unsubstantiated personal allegations – was a major breach of the

requirements in standard R5 that people be dealt with fairly. The Authority also

acknowledges that Coromandel FM broadcast a rebuttal, and later an apology, on a

number of occasions. But it does not accept that these actions relieve the seriousness

of the breach contained in the initial broadcasts. They were actions which the

broadcaster was obliged to take to correct the position in any event. The Authority

decides therefore to impose an order for costs. It does so having taken into account

the broadcaster's submission on the matter.

Order

The Authority orders Coromandel Communications Ltd to pay, within one

month of the date of this decision, costs in the amount of $500.00 to the Crown

under s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Lyndsay Loates
Member
21 May 1998

Appendix I

Ms Taylor-Dean's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 4

February 1998

Linda Taylor-Dean of Whitianga complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority,

under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that a news item broadcast on

Coromandel FM on 20 January had breached her privacy as well as other broadcasting

standards.

The lead item in the bulletin, she said, related to a supposed incident between herself

and a Maurice Fuller and named her as being primarily responsible for the

victimisation felt by Mr Fuller. The item also inferred, she wrote, that she was

responsible for the sabotage of Mr Fuller's canoes, and that was the reason why she

had left the Thames Coromandel District Council.

Claiming that the broadcaster had made no attempt to check the item with either her or

her employer at the time, she said that the item was broadcast repeatedly from 6.30am

until midday.

Following phone calls from the Council's Chief Executive Officer, and the chair of the

Mercury Bay Community Board, Ms Taylor-Dean added, the broadcaster reported

that the claims had been rebutted. However, she continued, there was no retraction or

apology until the following day after the broadcaster had received a letter from her

solicitor. Moreover, she wrote, the police had made a statement to the station in the

week before the broadcast that there had been no Council involvement in Mr Fuller's

claim.

Ms Taylor-Dean considered that the broadcast, in addition to breaching her privacy,

breached the standards relating to accuracy, fairness to the parties referred to, and

balance.

Describing the accusations in the broadcast as extremely serious, Ms Taylor-Dean

said that the broadcast had serious implications for her. She had left the Council ion

16 January and intended to start work as a real estate agent on 14 February.

However, she commented, she now believed there would be negative implications, as a

result of the broadcast, when dealing with the public in her new career.

Ms Taylor-Dean said that the station had broadcast an apology and retraction on 22

January and agreed to pay her legal costs. However she asked the Authority to take

action against the broadcaster. She enclosed a transcript of the original broadcast

(9.00am on 20 January), a report of Council's rebuttal, (1.00pm on 20 January), and

the apology (22 January). She also enclosed a letter from Coromandel FM (dated 20

January) in which the Managing Director acknowledged that she had not been given a

right of reply, for which an apology and retraction was appropriate.

Coromandel FM's Response to the Complaint – 5 March 1998

The reply sent by Brent Impey, barrister, on behalf of Coromandel FM responded to

the complaints from both Ms Taylor-Dean and Mr Scott, the Chief Executive of the

Thames Coromandel District Council. (The District Council's complaint is

summarised in Appendix II.)

The response began by reporting that Coromandel FM, in early January 1988,

followed up Mr Fuller's claim of victimisation by some unnamed people. Then, on 19

January, it had received a letter from Mr Fuller in which he had named Linda Taylor-

Dean. The news editor had tried to speak to her but he was advised that she had left

the Council. The Chair of the Community Board (Joan Gaskell) did not call back, and

Ms Taylor-Dean's name was not in the telephone directory. "Accordingly", he

continued, "the story based on the letter was broadcast at 9am Tuesday 20 January

1998".

The news editor, Mr Impey reported, was then contacted by Mr Scott, Chief

Executive of the Thames Coromandel District Council, and Joan Gaskell, Chair of the

Mercury Bay Community Board, who explained why Ms Taylor-Dean had left the

Council's employ. They both advised the news editor against trying to contact Ms

Taylor-Dean. The Council provided a rebuttal story which was broadcast at 12

midday, 1pm and 5pm on 20 January.

The news editor had later received a letter from a lawyer seeking an apology on behalf

of Ms Taylor-Dean, and one was broadcast at 1pm and 5pm on 21 January, and

7.30am, 8.30am and 9am on Thursday 22 January.

Mr Impey laid out the broadcaster's position:

Coromandel FM considers that the first item was broadcast in good faith.

Coromandel FM attempted to obtain a response from Linda Taylor-Dean and

Thames Coromandel District Council before the item was broadcast but could

not obtain a response. When information was received from Thames

Coromandel District Council in rebuttal, that was broadcast. When Linda

Taylor-Dean through her lawyer made contact with the station correcting the

inference that she was responsible for the withdrawal of the outrigger canoes

from Whitianga, this was broadcast in the form of an apology. Coromandel

FM considers that there has not been a breach of the codes for the following

reasons:

1. It considered the first broadcast to be truthful and based upon the

information supplied by Mr Fuller.

2. Linda Taylor-Dean was the Mercury Bay Community Board Secretary at

the time of the incident. In that role she was a public person and the

withdrawal of the outrigger business was a public fact. The broadcaster

relies on privacy principle (v) being news and current affairs reporting of a

public interest nature.

He next dealt with the nominated standards:

Coromandel FM responds to the complaint in reference to the codes as

follows:

                        R1  The News Editor considered that the first item was accurate and

             truthful on point of fact.

                        R5  The item makes it clear that the allegation is being made by Mr

                        Fuller against TCDC and Linda Taylor-Dean. Linda Taylor-Dean

                        was the Secretary of the Mercury Bay Community Board at the

                        time.

                        R12  Coromandel FM considers that it has more than acted appropriately

     in correcting the factual error and with similar prominence.

                        R13  Coromandel FM considers it has acted responsibly and speedily in

     the event of the complaint. It broadcast the apology immediately.

     It still has to receive the TCDC complaint directly and has

     responded in the proper manner.

                        R16      This has been covered above

                        R17      This is covered above.

Mr Impey concluded:

Coromandel FM considers that it has acted properly In this matter. It

attempted to verify the story with Thames Coromandel District Council and

Linda Taylor-Dean but could not obtain any contact. When the other side of

the story was known, immediate steps were taken to broadcast a rebuttal and

later an apology. For this reasons the broadcaster considers that it has met its

obligations.

Ms Taylor-Dean's Final Comment – 20 March 1998

Ms Taylor-Dean responded to a number of points in the broadcaster's reply.

First, she asked, if the broadcaster had decided that there was no story after receipt of

the initial letter from Mr Fuller concerning an alleged incident, why did it broadcast

the story including her name on receipt of his second letter some weeks later. This

was an extremely serious implied accusation of a criminal offence, she wrote.

Secondly, as Joan Gaskell was frequently called on to comment on stories, Ms

Taylor-Dean wondered why she was not contacted on this occasion. She herself was

listed in the telephone book as Dean L.A. and would not have been difficult to locate.

Ms Gaskell and Mr Scott, she added, had asked for a retraction, not just "a mere

rebuttal". She commented:

The radio station chose to link my leaving Themes Coromandel District Council

with this supposed incident by the tone in which it was stated that I was no

longer employed by Thames Coromandel District Council. This left my name

tarnished to the public. This after working for 2 1/2years in a new town to me

and working hard to build a good reputation in the work force. Particularly so

as it is not easy to obtain employment in this small town.

In responding to the broadcaster's position, the complainant maintained that the

broadcaster failed to check the facts of the story before the broadcast. Noting that she

was the Community Board Secretary, not an elected representative, she continued:

Was its content so important to the public that a broadcast was required

without checking the facts or giving an opportunity for comment. This story, in

my opinion, could have been held for some time until a comment was obtained

so that both sides could be presented fairly.

Turning to the broadcaster's response to the standards, Ms Taylor-Dean wrote in

relation to standard R1, that the news item was based on innuendo. As for standard

R12, she questioned the value of correcting slanderous statements after their

broadcast. In relation to standard R13, she disputed the broadcaster's comment that it

had acted speedily.

Ms Taylor-Dean concluded:

... the effect that incident has had on me is one of loss of self-confidence and

extreme embarrassment. I have been fortunate to have had the support of

those that know me both personally and professionally but I find myself

watching for people's reactions when I am introduced to them - wondering if

they heard the story.

I hope that no other private individual is subjected to the same.

Further Correspondence

See Appendix ll

Appendix II

Thames Coromandel District Council's Complaint to Coromandel

Communications Ltd – 9 February 1998

Through the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Chief Executive of the Thames

Coromandel District Council (Mr R L Scott) complained to Coromandel

Communications Ltd, trading as Coromandel FM, about a news item broadcast on 20

January 1998.

Noting that the item referred to the Council and a former employee (Ms Linda Taylor-

Dean, who had resigned from the Council in late January), Mr Scott said that the item

"fell well short of objective journalism", and cast doubts on Ms Taylor-Dean's

integrity. He maintained that the item breached standards R1, R5, R12, R13, R16 and

R17 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Attached to the complaint was the correspondence between Maurice Fuller, trading as

Outrigger Canoes New Zealand, and the Council. The final letter of 12 January 1998

to Mr Scott alleged, among other things "personal victimisation" by Ms Taylor-Dean.

That letter had been copied by Mr Fuller and sent to several people, including

Coromandel FM.

Coromandel FM's Response to the Formal Complaint – 5 March 1998

The response from Mr Impey on behalf of the broadcaster dealt with both the

Council's and Ms Taylor-Dean's complaints.

The Council's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 18 March

1998

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's reply, Mr Scott on behalf of his Council referred

the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989

The Council was not satisfied, he wrote, that the news item was responsible

journalism, and it was convinced that it was unfair to Ms Taylor-Dean. Mr Scott

added:

Ms Taylor-Dean, as a Council employee was faithfully carrying out her duties

and implementing the specific policy direction as enunciated by the Community

Board. If that decision was wrong or unpopular I as Chief Executive can be

expected to respond to public criticism but not her. In my view it is

unreasonable for a radio station to implicate junior staff as a result of an

unpopular decision by a duly elected political body going about its lawful

duties. It certainly is unfair for CFM to implicate her solely on the basis of a

letter from a complainant. It is unfair in that the decision she was required to

implement was not hers, it was a Board decision. By being implicated in the

way she was caused her significant embarrassment and anxiety.

He also expressed concern that while the news reader had apologised, management had

not done so.

Coromandel FM's Response to the Authority – 9 April 1998

In the report to the Authority on behalf of the broadcaster, Mr Impey reiterated the

point that Ms Taylor-Dean was in a public position in her role as an employee of the

TCDC.

He also pointed out that Coromandel FM had broadcast both a balancing item to Mr

Fuller's view, and an apology to Ms Taylor-Dean. "Coromandel FM", he wrote, "did

not set out to offend Ms Taylor-Dean but to broadcast a local news story originated

by Mr Fuller".

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 20 April 1998, the Authority asked Mr Impey for submissions on the

question of penalty from Coromandel FM, should it decide to uphold the standards

complaint. Mr Impey in his reply dated 24 April argued that, should the complaint

be upheld, there should be no penalty by way of costs in view of the facts

surrounding the apology.

On 20 January 1998, Mr Impey recalled, Coromandel FM received a letter from a

solicitor acting on behalf of Ms Taylor-Dean seeking an apology. When the Managing

Director of Coromandel FM (Mr Male) sought his advice, Mr Impey wrote, it was

agreed to broadcast an apology. An apology approved by Ms Taylor-Dean was

received at 11.00am on the 21st and it was agreed that it would be broadcast three

times on the afternoon of the 21st and five times on the 22nd. The wording of the

apology was rewritten and, in addition, Coromandel FM paid $450 costs plus GST to

Ms Taylor-Dean. Enclosing file notes to confirm the above Mr Impey concluded:

It is Coromandel FM's submission that the broadcast of the apology on 8

occasions, plus a written apology written at Mr Henry's request on behalf of

his client and the payment of $450 costs for a couple of letters and a couple of

phone calls is more than sufficient recompense in this situation.