BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News report breached the accuracy standard through its story about the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s findings concerning a fatal shooting. The complainant considered the story misleading for its emphasis on the shooting being ‘unjustified’ without further context, including regarding the ‘fine margin’ of the decision. When considered as a whole, the Authority found a reasonable viewer was unlikely to come away from the broadcast with a wrong idea or impression of the facts.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  On 21 November 2024, 1News reported on the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s (IPCA’s) findings concerning the shooting of a man in Taranaki. It was introduced as follows:

Newsreader:  The fatal shooting of an unarmed man by police in Taranaki in April 2022 was unjustified and excessive, according to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. But it recommends no criminal charges or disciplinary action against the officer involved. [The deceased] had sideswiped a police vehicle with his car and was attempting to hijack another car. Our chief correspondent John Campbell reports.

[2]  The segment included comment from the deceased’s family, Firearms Barrister Nicholas Taylor and the Central District Police Commander Supt Dion Bennett:

Presenter:  His family met this morning to digest the Independent Police Conduct Authority's report. [His] ashes on the couch between his mother and his grandmother. While they welcome some of what the IPCA found, the fact there will be neither criminal charges nor disciplinary action against the officer who fired the shots seems inexplicable to them.

Deceased’s Grandmother: If that was one of us, we would have [been up for] murder.

(Barrister) Nicholas Taylor: Unfortunately, it's very common that the IPCA don't actually follow through with a recommendation of disciplinary action against a police officer.

Presenter: What we know from the IPCA report is that the officer involved had a taser. There was a dog there, and [the deceased] was unarmed. Was the use, the fatal use of a firearm in that situation excessive?

Central District Police Commander Dion Bennett: The IPCA have reviewed the investigation the police conducted, and they’ve made their findings, and we acknowledge the findings that the IPCA made in this instance.

Presenter: You acknowledge them. Do you accept them? Do you accept the word unjustified, for example?

Bennett: As I said, we acknowledge the IPCA's report, and I think it's a fair report and reflects the situation that our people found themselves in. 

Presenter: The IPCA found most of the officers’ actions were reasonable, but it took issue with the final fatal confrontation. It found the risk that two members of the public could have been injured or killed was unacceptably high, that there was an unacceptable risk that the officer could have missed, or the bullet ricocheted and that the shooting was unjustified as a taser could have been used. It found the officer had used excessive force.

[During these comments by Campbell, extracts from the report were depicted on screen including one stating: ‘we have concluded, by a fine margin, that Officer A’s shooting of [the deceased] was unjustified, as Officer A could have used a Taser.’]

Taylor: The amount of force that someone uses has to be proportionate to the threat that they are facing. So that in itself is quite a serious allegation for the IPCA to make or it's a serious finding for them to make.

Bennett: Our people don't want to go out there and get into these situations.

…

Presenter: The family knew [the deceased] was criminally off the rails. They've never sugar-coated it.

Deceased’s Grandmother: Ok he was a little shit which he was. I'm not denying it.

Presenter: Two and a half years on, the question perhaps still remains. How do we police our little shits and when should that include fatal force?

[3]  The segment finished with the following comments:

Presenter: …So there's a number of things yet to come. First of all, the coronial inquest. Now that is a rigorous examination of the facts…The second thing…is what the family are considering…We may be informed about the possibilities by what happened here after the shooting of Steven Wallace in Waitara in 2000, one of five men in Taranaki to have been fatally shot by police so far this century, by the way. His mother commenced civil proceedings against the Crown. And then the big picture is police prosecuting police officers for fatal shootings. They investigate themselves essentially. Are we getting that right? Are police rigorous enough in those affairs and the IPCA and their powers to suggest, or not, prosecution of police officers in these circumstances? I’ve spoken to three lawyers and a legal expert today who've all said they don't think we are yet getting this right. But I want to end on a quote from Judge Colin Doherty who is a former head of the IPCA who left in 2023 after five years as chairman of that organisation…He said, ‘I've seen from time to time a reluctance by police to prosecute police officers where if it had been an ordinary member of the public, I've got no doubt that a prosecution would have been made.’ So, these issues are very much up for consideration.

The complaint

[4]  Kevin Williams complained the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis it:

• reported the shooting as unjustified, highlighting the ‘unjustified bit’, but failed to report that finding was by a fine margin
• took what was reported out of context.

[5]  On referral to the Authority, Williams also sought to rely on the balance standard, noting if the segment was balanced it would have reported what the IPCA actually said. However, pursuant to section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, we are only able to consider his complaint under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. The High Court has clarified that in certain circumstances:¹

…it is permissible [for the Authority] to fill gaps… or cross boundaries between Code standards…but only if these things can be done within the wording, reasonably interpreted, of the original complaint, and if a proper consideration of the complaint makes that approach reasonably necessary…

[6]  In our view, his original complaint, reasonably interpreted, does not raise or necessitate consideration under the balance standard. The complaint concerns an allegedly misleading depiction of a factual matter (the nature of the IPCA’s finding) which is best considered under the accuracy standard. Accordingly, we do not consider the balance standard in this decision.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint noting:

• The margin by which IPCA’s conclusion was reached does not change the conclusion the shooting was ‘unjustified’ and the officer’s use of force ‘excessive’.
• The story included a graphic showing excerpts from the IPCA’s report which included the detail regarding the ‘fine margin’ on which the decision turned.
• There are legitimate concerns around how the IPCA investigates complaints against the police and the reporter’s examination of the IPCA’s findings was clearly justified in the public interest.

The standards

[8]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (Standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.² 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
• does not materially mislead the audience by giving a wrong idea or impression of the facts.

Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Our analysis

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

[10]  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.³ The broadcast explored the IPCA’s approach to complaints about police officers involved in fatal shootings in the context of its recent findings regarding the shooting of the deceased. This carried significant public interest and, for the reasons outlined below, we have identified no potential harm sufficient to justify our intervention.

[11]  The complainant considers the story misleading for its emphasis on the shooting being ‘unjustified’ without further context (including that the relevant finding was by a fine margin).

[12]  To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.⁴  Programmes may be misleading by omission, or as a result of the way dialogue and images have been edited together.

[13]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or unimportant points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁵

[14]  As we have previously recognised:⁶

The nature of news broadcasting is such that complex situations and facts will often necessarily be reduced to key points to convey the essence of the story to viewers within a brief news item. It is not usually possible, nor reasonable, for every detail to be included. We would be concerned only if an item became misleading by omission in the sense that viewers were given a 'wrong idea or impression of the facts'.

[15]  We do not consider the segment was misleading:

• Whether or not the IPCA’s decision was by a ‘fine margin’, the circumstances were found to meet the criteria for findings that the shooting was ‘unjustified’ and that ‘excessive force’ was used (which amounts to serious misconduct under the Police Code of Conduct).⁷ It was not misleading to report this.
• While the fine margin of the decision can be expected to influence the IPCA’s approach to recommendations, it did not make it inherently unreasonable or misleading to explore whether the IPCA were ‘getting it right’ regarding recommendations.
• Though not ‘emphasised’, a graphic depicting the relevant report extract, including the ‘fine margin’ applicable, was shown on screen during the presenter’s comments.
• Other content in the broadcast signalled the background to the findings and complexities of the circumstances, for example:
  
  (a)  Newsreader: ‘[The deceased] had sideswiped a police vehicle with his car and was attempting to hijack another car.’
  (b)  Central District Police Commander: ‘I think it’s a fair report and reflects the circumstances that our people found themselves in…Our people don’t want to go out there and get into these situations.’
  (c)  Presenter: ‘The IPCA found most of the officers’ actions were reasonable, but it took issue with the final fatal confrontation. It found the risk that two members of the public could have been injured or killed was unacceptably high, that there was an unacceptable risk that the officer could have missed, or the bullet ricocheted and that the shooting was unjustified as a taser could have been used.’
  (d)  Presenter: ‘The family, knew [the deceased] was criminally off the rails. They've never sugar-coated it.’

[16]  In these circumstances, when the broadcast is considered as a whole, we find a reasonable viewer is unlikely to be left with a wrong idea or impression of the facts.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
12 March 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Kevin Williams’ formal complaint – 21 November 2024

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 18 December 2024

3  Williams’ referral to the Authority – 24 December 2024

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 7 February 2025

¹ See Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Limited, [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
² Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
⁵ Guideline 6.2
⁶ AFFCO Holdings Ltd and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2015-050 at [22]
⁷ Independent Police Conduct Authority report, IPCA: 22-13297 ‘Did officer use excessive force in fatally shooting [name redacted] in New Plymouth’, 12 November 2024 at para [173]