Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Breeze – host revealed the fact that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break – statement included wife’s first name – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on The Breeze, broadcast between 6am and 6. 30am on Monday 19 January 2009, the host revealed to listeners that he and his wife had separated during the Christmas holiday break. The host disclosed his wife’s first name. Referral to the Authority [2] Barbara White lodged a privacy complaint about the broadcast with the Authority under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 99/95 Decision No: 100/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by M B of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-004 Decision No: 1996-005 Decision No: 1996-006 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by COMPLAINANT L of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO LIBERTY NETWORK J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about the Teachers Council registering people with convictions – referred to the case of a high school teacher who had been “convicted of supplying P to four students” – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 2 – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while item was ambiguous as to whether Mr Arthur supplied P to his own students, it was inaccurate to state that he supplied P to students – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to state that Mr Arthur supplied P to students – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on bullying at Massey High School – contained repeated footage of girls fighting – item was not preceded by a warning – parents and students interviewed expressed dissatisfaction at how the school had handled the incident – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – students shown in the footage were not identifiable beyond those who would have already known about the altercation – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item did not present itself as a follow-up to the previous story on bullying and was not unfair to X, his parents or Massey in this respect – impression created about fighting and bullying at Massey was not the result of unfairness but stemmed from the facts of the incident and the response of students and parents…...

ComplaintHolmes – coverage of rally driver Possum Bourne’s funeral service – tribute by eight-year-old son – breach of child’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of child considered by broadcaster – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Coverage of rally driver Possum Bourne’s funeral service was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 6 May 2003. The item included the tribute made by his eight-year-old son, Taylor Bourne. [2] Kevin Nicol complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that the item, broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd, breached the child’s privacy....

ComplaintClassic Hits – news items – privacy – complainant named in relation to theft charge – name suppression granted after broadcast FindingsPrinciple 8 – tape retention inadequate Privacy – public facts – no uphold Principle 5 – broadcasts not incorrect – no unfairness – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A woman who had been charged with theft as an employee was named in news items broadcast on Classic Hits in Hamilton on 18 April and 2 May 2001. SF complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the news items broadcast on 18 April were incorrect and breached her privacy. TRN did not accept that the 18 April broadcast was incorrect. It noted that, at the time of the broadcasts, no name suppression order had been made by the court....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-175 Decision No: 1996-176 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TEMALOTI FAKAOSI (2) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintPrivate Investigators – filming of Graeme Lee – privacy – unauthorised filming and broadcast – highly offensive and objectionable – unfair Findings (1) Privacy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – majority – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Private Investigators was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 4 July 2000. Private Investigators is a series about the activities of private investigators in New Zealand. Hon Reverend Graeme Lee, a gospel minister and former Member of Parliament, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached his privacy. He also complained to TVNZ that the broadcast was unfair to him. The programme included footage of Mr Lee arriving for a prayer meeting at a house where a private investigator was in the process of recovering goods from its occupants....

ComplaintWeddings: Happily Ever After? – update on some couples who appeared in Weddings – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – consent form for footage from Weddings – subsequent information freely given – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Weddings: Happily Ever After? was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2001. The programme reported on the state of the relationships of some of the couples who had appeared on previous episodes of Weddings. [2] Kylie and Simon Bernie, one of the couples, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme had breached standards relating to privacy. Mr and Mrs Bernie maintained that they had not consented to the inclusion of information about them or their baby daughter in the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – programme about work of New Zealand police – filmed execution of search warrant at complainant’s property – programme included footage of street, driveway and house, the complainant and other occupants – stated complainant was subsequently convicted for possession of cannabis and fined – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – MA had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – MA did not provide consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of privacy – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on striking workers from recycling company Paper Reclaim who wanted a pay increase of one dollar extra an hour – stated that they worked in “dirty, unsanitary conditions” and that there was a rat problem at Paper Reclaim’s plant – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and privacy Campbell Live promos – promos on TV3 and Radio Live referred to working with rubbish and rats for low pay – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness FindingsCampbell Live Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme created strong impression that Paper Reclaim’s premises were unsanitary and rat-infested – misleading – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to suggest that Paper Reclaim had a serious rat problem – Paper Reclaim was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations about its working conditions and rat infestation – door-stepping not unfair – upheld Standard…...

ComplaintJohn Banks – talkback – "Royal Breakfast Show" – broadcast of complainant’s name and part of complaint – derogatory reference Findings(1) Privacy principle (iv) – identification – name and content of complaint private facts – facts not used to abuse, denigrate or ridicule – no uphold (2) Privacy principle (v) – identification – complainant’s name private information in context – uphold (3) Privacy principles (vi) and (vii) – no public interest in disclosure – making a complaint no consent to privacy breach – no defence No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Radio Pacific talkback host (John Banks) read on-air part of A’s written complaint about the host’s use of the word "Royal" to describe his show. The complainant was named in the broadcast during the morning of 2 February 2000 at approximately 7. 20am....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – broadcast conversation with listener – hosts had told listener that she was not on air – broadcast her cellphone number – listener complained that broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair – broadcaster upheld the complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – action taken insufficient – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken insufficient – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Wednesday 27 August 2008 on The Edge radio station, a telephone conversation between the hosts and a listener was broadcast between 5pm and 6pm. The listener expressed concern that the hosts were making inappropriate remarks about people from other countries, such as India and America....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Apna Ne Bana Di Jodi – personal ads included complainant’s age, gender and phone number – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – telephone number disclosed in a highly offensive manner – resulted in harassment of complainant – upheldOrderSection 13(1)(d) – payment of $500 to the complainant for breach of privacyThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Apna Ne Bana Di Jodi, broadcast on APNA 990 at around 11. 30am on 19 April 2010, a host read out a number of “matchmaking messages” which included people’s ages, gender, ethnicity or religion, and phone number. One of the messages stated: 46-year-old Hindu male, New Zealand citizen, [mobile phone number]. Complaint [2] NJ lodged a complaint with APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the broadcast of his phone number had breached his privacy....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The majority of the Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about an item on Asliyat responding to petitions made in opposition to Radio Virsa staff, in relation to Gurdwara management and the sale of a Gurdwara property. The host called into question the righteousness of the petitioners as Sikhs, including the complainant’s son, who the host identified as someone at the centre of a family scandal (which included issues of drug addiction and allegations of theft and other ‘bad things’). The complainant submitted the broadcast identified his son and disclosed private information in a way that was highly offensive and damaging to the reputation of his son and son’s family. Based on the information disclosed, the majority of the Authority found the complainant’s son was not identifiable beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matter dealt with in the broadcast....

The majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of the programme Renters breached the privacy of the tenants of the properties featured. The majority of the Authority did not find any of the tenants were identifiable. As the privacy standard only applies to identifiable individuals, the standard did not apply. The minority view was that the information disclosed was adequate to enable viewers, beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matters disclosed, to identify one individual and the information had the quality of private information such that the disclosure breached the privacy standard. Not Upheld by Majority: Privacy...

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....