Search Rapua

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.  ...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 56/94 Dated the 26th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by S. ARCHER of Wellington Broadcaster PIRATE FM of Wellington I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-032 Decision No: 1998-033 Dated the 26th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by RUTH BARTON of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary On two occasions on 31 July 1998 between 9. 00-9. 30am, a caller to Hot 93FM referred to the winner of an on-air competition as "That bitch E…C…". The caller said she had helped the winner with the answers to the competition, but that the winner had refused to share the prize of a dinner for four. Station staff then made two hoax calls in a similar vein. Ms C, the winner of the competition, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy was breached by the broadcast. She also complained directly to the station that it contravened the requirement for broadcasters to observe standards of good taste and decency. She reported that she had been extremely upset by the calls....

Summary A short sequence in Havoc and Newsboy’s Sell-Out Tour showed the characters Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy) camping on Great Barrier Island. The item was broadcast on TV2 on 20 July 1999 at 10. 00pm. Robin Court complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme showed and "advocated" camping and related activities on and around property owned by the Onekokoru Trust. He said that some of the activities breached or could breach by-laws, and that the "unauthorised use" of Trust property was offensive and deeply disturbing to members of the Trust. TVNZ responded that the land it showed was not identifiable as Trust property. Accordingly, it said that the programme did not advocate anything about the merits of Trust property as a camping place....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Simulcast by broadcasters of the Good Vibrations Carnival at Cooper’s Beach between 1pm and 5pm Saturday 15 April 2006 – carnival organised as community response to Dr Neil Benson’s plan to open a brothel at Cooper’s Beach – broadcast included comments critical of brothel proposal and extracts critical of the proposal from the meeting at Mangonui Town Hall organised to discuss brothel proposal – broadcasts allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsDoubtless Bay Family RadioPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – approach taken in broadcast clearly explained and reasonable opportunities given for other significant points of view – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – Bensons not dealt with unfairly – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – brothel owners not denigrated or discriminated against – not upheldFar…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 146/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G CHAMBERS of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-113 Decision No: 1996-114 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by A S and J A BAKER of Mt Maunganui Broadcaster MIX 100 FM (Tauranga) Energy Enterprises Ltd J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary An item in Crimescene broadcast on TV2 on 7 July 1998 between 7. 30–8. 00pm focussed on a case where a man had assumed the identity of a dead child to defraud the student loan scheme. Photographs of a number of people who had been involved in fraudulent schemes in the past accompanied the item. T, whose picture was featured, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his privacy was breached. He pointed out that he had already been convicted, had served his sentence and deserved the right to begin his life afresh. He maintained that his case had no relevance to the item. In its response to the Authority, Television New Zealand Ltd submitted that Mr T’s conviction occurred last year in the context of a high-profile fraud case, for which others were still serving sentences....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out an email from the complainant – pronounced complainant’s last name incorrectly – host made comments responding to the complainant’s email – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable – people who provide feedback cannot expect anonymity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a Breakfast segment called “On This Day”, broadcast on TV One at 6. 45am on 24 June 2009, the host referred to the “Jakarta incident” saying: On this day in 1982, a British Airways Boeing 747 en route from London to Auckland lost power in all four engines when it flew into volcanic ash off Indonesia. The pilots managed incredibly to glide the plane through the cloud of ash before restarting the engines and landing safely....

This decision has been amended to remove the names of persons who were not a party to the complaint....

Complaint3 News – complainants included one of two survivors of an air crash in which eight people died – message left on answerphone reporting progress and advising that they were not giving interviews to media – answerphone message omitting reference to interviews broadcast as part of news item – breach of privacy – unfair FindingsStandard 3, Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) – answerphone message aimed at all callers – information was released to the public – no intrusion in the nature of prying – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6e – time of stress for the complainants – high public interest – contents of message in public arena – use of message not insensitive or unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News reported on three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges, and showed images of two lists of names, in which the complainants' names featured. The Authority declined to uphold complaints that by showing their names during a discussion about the accused sex offenders, the item breached the complainants' privacy. Their position as Parliamentary Service employees was not private, the inclusion of the complainants' names was peripheral to the item, and there was no suggestion that the complainants were the accused sex offenders, as the three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges were explicitly identified by both their names and their images....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Water Patrol, a reality TV series following the work of the Maritime Police, showed footage of the complainant, PG, in his boat in the Marlborough Sounds. The police vessel approached him from behind and asked him to stop his motor. The complainant was caught off-guard, apparently not wearing any pants. As he stood up to engage with the police, the fact he was wrapping a towel around his waist was highlighted and the police officer turned to the camera and commented, with a smile on his face, 'very unusual'....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday focused on an initiative by a road safety organisation which creates images of car crash victims as they would appear now. One of the families taking part in this initiative lost their seven-year-old boy, who was killed by drink-driving teenagers 17 years earlier. The incident was briefly recounted, showing footage of the driver of the car and of several passengers. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the young people involved in the crash. The crash was a sufficiently serious and well-known event that the facts about it and the individuals' involvement had not become private again through the passage of time. The story carried high public interest and did not revisit the incident in a manner that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed the difficulties first-home buyers face in attaining a Government HomeStart financial grant. At the end of the item, the reporter discussed the increase in the number of overseas buyers in Auckland. During this segment, footage of three people walking into an open home from the road was shown. At the end of the item, this group and one other individual were shown getting into a car parked in the street, with the number plate clearly visible. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this footage breached the group’s privacy. While the individuals walking to the car were identifiable, none of their personal details were disclosed, and they had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances....

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....

Summary A prison officer, accused of a sexual relationship with an inmate, was the subject of a 20/20 item entitled "A Pregnant Silence" broadcast on TV3 on 13 September 1998 between 6. 30–7. 30pm. K complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached her privacy because it included footage of her house when the prison officer, who was her flatmate, was filmed leaving her home. She observed that its identity was clear because the house number was clearly shown. She argued that when personal details were given about the officer, it could have been incorrectly inferred that he lived at that address with his family. K sought an assurance that no more footage of her house would be shown as she had no connection with the story....