Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-172 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GEORGE W GRAY of Maungaturoto Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – repeat screening of an episode showing a family who had been apprehended by Fisheries Officers for infringing the fishing regulations – allegedly breached the privacy of the familyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A repeat broadcast of an episode of Coastwatch screened on TV One at 1pm on 3 October 2004. Coastwatch is a reality series which follows the activities of various law enforcement officers who patrol the coastline. The original episode had screened at 8pm on 15 March 2004. [2] The broadcast showed a family who had been apprehended by Fisheries Officers for taking more cockles from the beach than permitted by law....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court AP46/02 PDF1. 3 MBComplaint20/20 – "Paradise Lost" – item on child prostitution in Fiji – breach of children’s privacy – unfair depiction of child victim – discrimination on account of sex, race and ageFindingsPrivacy – privacy principle (i) – public disclosure of private facts about children – highly offensive and objectionable facts – no public interest defence under privacy principle (vi) – upholdStandard G4 – child sex abuse victim treated unfairly – upholdStandard G13 – high threshold – no upholdCross-referenceDecision No. 1999-125–137OrderBroadcast of statementCosts to complainant of $463. 50This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] "Paradise Lost", an item on 20/20, was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 15 July 2001....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]APNA 990 broadcast a segment disclosing that a named company allegedly owed it money and asking for the director of that company to 'contact us [as soon as possible] to sort out the account'. The Authority upheld the complaint that the broadcast breached the privacy of the company director because a debt is a private matter between the debtor and the person or company to whom the debt is owed. The disclosure was highly offensive as the complainant could reasonably expect the debt to remain private, and there was no public interest in disclosing it to the public at large....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]My Kitchen Rules showed the contestants shopping at a Countdown supermarket in Christchurch, in which the complainant was briefly visible in the background. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the footage of the complainant breached her privacy. The footage was extremely fleeting and she would have been identifiable to only a very limited group of people, paying close attention to the footage. The complainant's whereabouts were not a private fact because she had voluntarily disclosed this on social and professional networking sites and this information, along with her employment at the Countdown store, were disclosed in a press release. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During My Kitchen Rules, a competitive cooking show, the contestants were filmed shopping at a supermarket in Christchurch. The complainant, CE, was shown very briefly in the background....

ComplaintChannel Z – News item – arrest of man for the kidnapping of Kahurautete Durie – reported that the accused expected to have a hard time in jail – announcer expressed pleasure at that prospect – offensive, unfair and unbalanced – broadcaster upheld aspect that item failed to distinguish between fact and opinionFindingsPrinciple 1 – not offensive – no upholdPrinciple 2 – did not encourage breach of law – no upholdPrinciple 3 – accused not named – no breach of privacy – no upholdPrinciple 4 – not unbalanced – no upholdPrinciple 6 – facts sourced and distinguished from opinion – no upholdPrinciple 7 – gang spokesmen cited – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The arrest of a 54 year-old man accused of kidnapping Kahurautete Durie was reported in a news item on Channel Z broadcast at 8. 00am on 22 April 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – interviewed Phyllis Tarawhiti who had been recently released from a prison in Thailand – included footage of family and friends at her 50th birthday party – item also included a photo of a family portrait – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage from birthday party disclosed private facts – disclosure not highly offensive – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 2 April 2007, interviewed Phyllis Tarawhiti, a woman who had recently been released from prison in Thailand and who had returned home to New Zealand....

ComplaintPolice Ten 7 – complainant arrested by police – shown without consent – breach of privacy complaintFindingsStandard 3 – Privacy Principle i) – filming in public place – no highly offensive facts disclosed – Privacy Principle v) – name disclosed but consent form later signed – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The series Police Ten 7 follows a Police team while on duty. The questioning and subsequent arrest of the complainant for obscene language was one of the items dealt with in the episode broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 21 August 2003. [2] MD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that being shown on the programme without his consent breached his privacy....

SummaryConcern about repeat drink/driving offences was dealt with in an item broadcast on both 3 News and Nightline, on TV3 between 6. 00–7. 00pm and 10. 30–11. 00pm respectively on 22 February 1999. The item included footage of the police dealing with drivers who had been drinking, and included a segment showing a woman struggling violently as she was put into a police car. Ms M, the struggling woman, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the item breached her privacy. The incident screened had occurred seven years previously, she wrote. She recalled that she had been struggling at the time as she considered that she had not been treated fairly by the police when they insisted that she undergo a breath test although she had not been driving. Subsequently, she advised, she was convicted of assault but the drink driving charge had been dismissed....

SummaryAn item on Holmes examined "Operation Youthcare", a police and community initiative dealing with some problems arising from children and young people frequenting the city centre of Nelson at night. Part of the filming took place in the police station where a number of young people were being held or questioned. It was reported that, in some cases, their parents were summoned to the station. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 June 1999, commencing at 7. 00pm. G complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his and his daughter’s privacy were breached by the filming. Both he and his daughter were identifiable, he wrote. He also complained that the broadcast of the details of a private conversation between his daughter and a police officer breached her privacy....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-115 Decision No: 1996-116 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by STEVE CONWAY of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-170 Decision No: 1966-171 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ANNE BAKER (2) of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of I Am Innocent focused on the story of Y, a science teacher, who was accused and charged with indecently assaulting a female student (‘X’) in 2012. The charges against Y were withdrawn around August-September 2013. The episode featured interviews with Y and others, all of whom spoke supportively about him. Ms Johnson complained that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards, including that comments made during the programme about X and her mother resulted in their unfair treatment. The Authority upheld this aspect of Ms Johnson’s complaint, finding that the programme created a negative impression of X and her mother....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...