Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Dog Squad featured footage taken at a named international airport in New Zealand, during which a Ministry for Primary Industries detector dog found an apple in a couple’s bag. PN, a Quarantine Officer, was shown questioning the couple about the apple and issuing them with a fine. The faces of PN and the couple, and PN’s identity tag, were blurred and PN was not named. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the segment breached PN’s privacy. While it found that, despite the blurring, PN was identifiable in the broadcast, it did not consider that any private information was disclosed during the segment....

Complaint89. 8 ZM – "spot the difference" competition – complainant’s incorrect entry read – complainant identified – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – privacy foregone by entering competition – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The results of a "spot the difference" competition were broadcast on 89. 8 ZM on 11 January 2002 at approximately 4. 50pm. During the broadcast, KD’s incorrect answers and her name, city of residence and email address were read out on-air. [2] KD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy had been breached by the broadcast. She said that the broadcast had caused her humiliation and distress. [3] The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster of 89. 8 ZM, did not accept that KD’s privacy had been breached in the context of a "fun competition"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item on girl gangs in Hawke’s Bay – interviewed current and former gang members – contained footage of four young teenage girls who were shown wearing gang-style clothing and spray-painting graffiti on a public basketball court – included a re-enactment involving two young girls breaking into a house – gang members shown drinking alcohol and talking about fighting – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – four young girls identifiable – disclosed private facts – children under 16 could not consent – item not in the best interests of the children – girl aged 16 agreed to participate on condition her identity would be secret – identities not sufficiently protected – disclosed private facts about the girls – highly offensive disclosure – upheld Standard…...

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 –…...

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(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about strike action at the Port of Lyttelton – showed staff who were not on strike – complainant alleged that viewers might assume that they were on strike – alleged breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – staff not identifiable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Strike action at the Port of Lyttelton was dealt with in an item broadcast on 3 News beginning at 6. 00pm on 29 March 2005. Complaint [2] The Chief Executive (Rod Grout) of Pacifica Shipping (1985) Ltd (trading as the Pacific Transport Group) complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the item breached the privacy of some Pacifica Shipping workers....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-121:McCloy and 14 Others and Classic Gold Radio - 1993-121 PDF406. 23 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-005:McAllister and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-005 PDF1. 03 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-069:Presland and Northland Radio Company Ltd - 1992-069469. 1 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on the death of a Georgian luger at the Winter Olympics in Canada – showed footage of the athlete coming off his sled, flying over the barrier and hitting a metal pole – included still shots of the athlete in the air just prior to hitting the pole and then again in slow motion – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – item handled with care and sensitivity – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard does not apply to deceased persons – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Parekura Horomia – comments made during filming break – broadcast of private conversation – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – Privacy Principle (iii) – intentional interference with Mr Horomia's interest in solitude or seclusion – offensive – no consent – insufficient public interest – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An interview with the Minister of Maori Affairs designate, Parekura Horomia, was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 24 July 2000. In an addendum to the interview, viewers heard a recording of comments made by Mr Horomia during a filming break about his distrust of the media. Jo Crowley complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached Mr Horomia's privacy....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-161 Decision No: 1997-162 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by Mr X of Napier Broadcaster H B MEDIA GROUP LTD of Hastings S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-023 Decision No: 1998-024 Dated the 5th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by J of Palmerston North Broadcaster 92. 2XS (Palmerston North) S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryBirthday calls broadcast by 1XX in Whakatane on the morning of 7 April 1999 included one to BB who, it was said, was 50 on Saturday. The call included the comment that she was to be reunited on that day with her son whom she had given up for adoption 30 years ago. BB complained to Radio Bay of Plenty Ltd, the broadcaster of 1XX, that this incorrect statement was offensive and an invasion of her privacy. Explaining that an apology had been broadcast on 8 April and that a complaint had been made by the broadcaster to the police, Mr Glenn Smith, the broadcaster's Managing Director, apologised for the distress caused by the broadcast. Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision, BB referred her complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Story investigated an alleged issue within the Auckland property market. It was introduced: ‘Some real estate agents are helping investors and traders… get the houses first [before auction]’. An actor approached different real estate agencies and asked agents to sell him properties for investment prior to auction and at a lower price, which the presenter claimed would be in breach of the industry code. Amy Wildman, one of the agents approached, was filmed with a hidden camera apparently agreeing to sell a property prior to auction. The Authority upheld a complaint from Ms Wildman that she was treated unfairly. The broadcast was damaging to Ms Wildman and did not fairly represent her position, and the use of the hidden camera footage was, on balance, not justified by public interest considerations....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed further charges laid against a man accused of a double shooting in South Auckland. During the item, images of the crime scene were shown, including footage of blood on a pavement. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the footage of blood breached the privacy of those involved (ie, the surviving victim and the victims’ relatives or friends), and that the footage would have disturbed young viewers. No individuals were identified during the broadcast, including the surviving victim or either of the victims’ relatives or friends. In addition, the image of blood was brief and was not graphic or explicit, and viewers could reasonably expect that a news broadcast reporting on a double shooting might contain some footage relating to the crime....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Campbell Live sought to investigate allegations of misconduct within Gloriavale Christian Community. A reporter and a cameraman visited Gloriavale and spoke to two senior members of the community. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached these men's privacy. While the circumstances of the filming may have amounted to 'prying', the broadcast did not disclose any private information about the men in a manner that was highly offensive. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Campbell Live sought to investigate allegations of misconduct within the Gloriavale Christian Community. A reporter and a cameraman visited the community and spoke to two senior members, Fervent Stedfast and Howard Temple, at the entrance to the community's office. Footage and audio of the conversation was broadcast....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3rd Degree contained an interview with a man who was involved in a family feud over the provisions of his mother's will. The man described the legal battle with his brothers, and the item showed two old photographs of the brothers, one of whom was WS. The Authority upheld the complaint that WS' privacy was breached as he had not consented to having his image shown in the programme. Upheld: Privacy Order: Section 13(1)(d) $1,500 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy Introduction [1] An item on 3rd Degree looked at the consequences of not writing a will or having a will contested. It contained an interview with a man, X, who was involved in a family feud over the provisions of his mother's will....

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....