Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about child’s death from meningococcal disease following misdiagnosis – paediatrician involved in initial misdiagnosis named twice during the item – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – doctor's name, place of work and involvement in the case not private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 27 November 2008, investigated the death of a young child from meningococcal disease after the illness was misdiagnosed at Wanganui Hospital. In the first part of the item, a Close Up reporter outlined what had happened, and interviewed the parents of the child at their home....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-002633 PDF78. 95 KB Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand – Stake Out: Models Exposed – hidden camera footage of magazine editor photographing models in his bedroom and in an apartment – allegations in the programme that he was not honest about how the models’ photographs would be used – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy principles (i), (iii) and (vi) relevant – no private facts revealed therefore privacy principle (i) not breached – broadcast of hidden camera footage was in breach of privacy principle (iii) – no public interest – upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $3,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $393....

Complaints under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – item on the sale of shares by the New Plymouth District Council – broadcast of complainant’s recorded comments regarding the issue – allegedly unfair – alleged breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – complainant should have been aware he was being recorded – spirit of Guideline 5a observed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] On 8 September 2004 the complainant faxed to Newstalk ZB a copy of a letter he had sent to various official institutions, including the office of the Auditor-General. The letter included allegations by Mr Gibbs that a district council executive stood to benefit financially from the sale of shares by the New Plymouth District Council....

Summary An announcer on 95bFM broadcast himself leaving a sexually suggestive message on P’s answerphone, on 10 October 1997 at about 8. 45am. P is involved with a community standards lobby group which featured in news reports at the time. P complained to the Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that it was an invasion of her privacy to leave such a message on her answerphone and to use the airwaves to deride her. In its response to the Authority, the station denied that P’s privacy was breached, pointing out that her name was publicly available in another medium at the time. It apologised for the announcer’s role in the matter, and explained that his comments were directed at the group which P represented, and not at her personally. It reported that the announcer had been formally warned that leaving a malicious message was unacceptable behaviour....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Solid Gold – The Edge – The Rock – messages broadcast over 4 days asking anyone who knew whereabouts of complainant to contact The RadioWorks – improper use of missing person report – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsPrinciple 3, guideline 3a – privacy principle (iii) – disclosure of name because of a company’s unpaid debt – intrusion into seclusion – majority uphold; privacy principle (iv) – no intention to ridicule – no uphold; privacy principle (v) – no public interest in name disclosure – majority uphold Principle 5, guideline 5c – reference to complainant unfair – majority uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – complainants attended and participated in auction – complainants claimed that they would not be filmed – shown on programme – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 6 – irreconcilable conflict of facts as to particulars of the request not to film – decline to determine Standard 3 Guideline 3a Privacy Principle iii – no intentional intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A couple was shown making the final bid in the auction for a house during an episode of the reality series Location, Location, Location. The bid was unsuccessful as it failed to reach the reserve. The episode was broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 17 July 2002. [2] BQ and CR, the couple making the bid, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 – included footage of complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that it was where the murder took place – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable through footage of her house – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while the footage and implication the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on the activities of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which was said to be part of a “Pay and Pray” movement – profiled an ex-member, X, who claimed that she made substantial donations to the church – included hidden camera footage of church service – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – X was identifiable and item disclosed private facts about her – however, X was a willing participant and there is insufficient evidence to show she withdrew her consent to the broadcast – item did not breach X’s privacy – Bishop and Pastor were identifiable in hidden camera footage but did not have an interest in seclusion in a church service that was open and accessible to the general public –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Inspectors – Environmental Health Officer carried out routine spot check at fish and chip shop in Dunedin – made adverse comments about the state of the premises and delivered a food certificate downgrade from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’ – showed footage of business and of the shop owner with his face pixelated – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – shop owner had an interest in seclusion in the back part of his shop – camera crew’s actions amounted to an intrusion in the nature of prying because any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming – intrusion highly offensive – there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later –…...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item looked at “cheap lunches for kids” as part of series on child poverty – reporter interviewed children on their way to school and asked them what they had for breakfast and lunch – children were obscured by traffic, and had their faces and in some cases their clothing pixellated – footage allegedly in breach of children’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – children were not identifiable and so footage did not breach their privacy – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live was introduced as follows: Amongst the thousands of responses we have had to our series on child poverty, perhaps the question most often asked is, “What are the parents doing?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the former chairman of Bridgecorp, Bruce Nelson Davidson, appearing in the District Court – stated that Mr Davidson was a past president of the Institute of Directors and of the Auckland District Law Society – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and programme information standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster upheld accuracy complaint – action taken by broadcaster sufficient – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 151/95 Decision No: 152/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by JOHANNA KOSTER of Christchurch Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported one woman’s experience with receiving poor quality healthcare from The Palms Medical Centre in Palmerston North – Health and Disability Commissioner upheld her complaint about the centre – item named and showed footage from a previous item of one of the doctors involved – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – medical centre was told that Kay Shirkey was being interviewed about her experience at The Palms and that the story would be critical of the centre – Dr Saxe was her primary doctor – reporters asked several times to interview someone at the centre – not unfair – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about Dr Saxe – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on Ms Shirkey’s experience with The Palms – no discussion…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – anonymous caller revealed that named person had visited a medical clinic – disclosed confidential medical details – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $2,067 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On the afternoon of Monday 9 October 2006, the hosts on The Edge radio station stated that they had “a bit of inside goss” from an anonymous caller who had previously worked at a medical centre for two weeks. The hosts asked “are you breaking patient confidentiality here or something? ” to which the caller laughed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme informationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed about an identifiable person – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9....