BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

In an interview broadcast after the jury announced its verdict in the trial of Scott Watson, Olivia Hope’s father appealed for information which would help trace the bodies of the two victims. The item was broadcast on 11 September 1999 beginning at 6.00pm.

Ms van Drunen complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that Mr Hope had "blatantly accused" the parents of Scott Watson and the family of being part of a cover-up in the disappearance of the two young people. She suggested that as Mr Watson had been found guilty without a single piece of hard evidence, it was possible that he did not know what had happened to them.

RNZ responded that it found it hard to conclude that what was said contained an accusation of a cover-up. It suggested that it was better represented as an "appeal for information which will help trace the bodies". It did not consider that there had been any unfair treatment of other parties. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Ms van Drunen referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

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.

After the verdict was announced in the trial of Scott Watson, the man accused of murdering two young people in the Marlborough Sounds, Gerald Hope, the father of one of the victims, was interviewed. The item was broadcast at 6.00pm on Nation Radio on 11 September 1999, and was introduced by the reporter who said Mr Hope’s remarks were "an appeal for information which will help trace the bodies." Mr Hope was recorded as saying:

I would sincerely ask his family or anyone near to him to show some compassion. I mean we have two children yet which we are unable to deal with their disappearance let alone their deaths and I think it would be a huge concession to us and I respect them perhaps for their grief, they have lost a son, they have a son now who is a double murderer, we are parents who have two children who were murdered and we do not even have them. They have life, we have nothing.

Ms van Drunen complained to RNZ that Mr Hope had "blatantly accused" Scott Watson’s parents and family of being part of a cover-up in the disappearance of the two young people. She said that although she could understand that Mr Hope’s distress at not knowing where his daughter was, it was not appropriate for him to make a statement like that. In her view, it was not suitable for broadcast. Ms van Drunen said that from her understanding of the press reports, Scott Watson had been found guilty "without a single piece of hard evidence". She suggested it was possible that he did not know what had happened to the two victims.

RNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under Principle 5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. That principle states:

Principle 5

In programmes and their presentation, broadcasters are required to deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to.

Guidelines

5a  No telephone conversation will be recorded or broadcast for the purpose of news, current affairs or any other programme, unless the recipient has been advised that it is being recorded for possible broadcast, or is aware that the conversation is being broadcast. Exceptions may apply depending upon the context of the broadcast, including the legitimate use of humour.

5b  Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event or the overall views expressed.

5c  Programmes shall not be presented in such a way as to cause panic, or unwarranted alarm or undue distress.

The broadcaster began by noting that the item included a piece of actuality recorded after the jury announced its verdict. In reviewing the item, RNZ disputed the contention that it contained an accusation of a cover-up as Ms van Drunen suggested. It was, it considered, better described as "an appeal for information which will help trace the bodies". RNZ concluded that there had been no unfair treatment of the Watson family and declined to uphold the complaint.

Ms van Drunen’s referral to the Authority was substantively the same as her original letter of complaint. She did add that she considered the interview had not given a true reflection of the situation, and had caused undue distress to the Watson family and people who knew them.

RNZ advised that it had no further comment.

Having heard a tape of the item and read the transcript, the Authority concludes that the complaint is without foundation. It does not agree that Mr Hope’s remark "blatantly accused" the Watson family of being involved in a cover-up. The fact was that Scott Watson had been found guilty of two murders. Mr Hope’s plea was for further information which would help find the bodies and enable the victims’ families to grieve properly. The Authority does not consider in that context that the remark was unfair to the Watson family, and accordingly finds no breach of Principle 5.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
9 December 1999

Appendix

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

1.    Els van Drunen’s Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 12 September 1999

2.    RNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 7 October 1999

3.    Ms van Drunen’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 19 October 1999

4.    RNZ’s Response to the Authority – 28 October 1999