Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – included footage of Fisheries officers enforcing blue cod catch restrictions in the Marlborough Sounds – footage shown of officers pulling up to a boat which had been fishing in a banned area and issuing an infringement notice to the skipper for breaching the fishing restrictions – occupants of the boat were shown unpixellated – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – footage was matter-of-fact and not sensationalised – complainant was fined for a relatively serious offence – complainant and his companion treated fairly overall – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – footage taken in a public place – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Coastwatch was broadcast on TV2 on Monday 13 April 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that emails between employees were crucial evidence in the prosecution case of the founder of a failed finance company – six email addresses were shown on screen – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identifiable individuals linked to email addresses – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 9 August 2008, reported that “a series of emails between Bridgecorp employees has become crucial evidence in the prosecution case against the finance company’s founder”. Bridgecorp’s former executive directors had allegedly raised millions of dollars from investors knowing that the company was in default....

Complaint Motorway Patrol – complainant convicted of offences arising from accident – incident highly dramatised – complainant’s identity disclosed – breach of privacyFindingsSection 4(1)(c) – Privacy Principles applied:Principle i – no private facts disclosed – no uphold Principle iii – no unnecessary intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Motorway Patrol was broadcast weekly on TV2 at 8. 00pm on Tuesday evenings. Part of the episode on 28 August, and the entire episode on 4 September 2001, described the police investigation into a fatal motorway crash which resulted in the complainant pleading guilty to serious driving offences and being sentenced to imprisonment. [2] Through his solicitor, the complainant complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – report on dispute between Jim Anderton and Mike Moore – item showed an email from the complainant in which her name and email address were visible – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principles 1 and 4 – email address not covered by privacy principle 4 – personal email address could be a private fact for the purposes of privacy principle 1 in some circumstances – in this case disclosure was incidental to the focus of the report – the disclosure was brief and would not be highly offensive to the objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 3rd Degree reported on a Korean man X who was ousted from his local church community for his participation in a ‘mockumentary’ about North Korea. The programme included an interview with the editor of a local Korean newspaper (one of the complainants), and attempted to interview a priest from X’s church. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the story was unfair to the interviewees and breached the newspaper editor’s privacy. The programme made genuine attempts to obtain comment from the interviewees, and they were treated fairly. The newspaper editor agreed to an interview so the broadcast did not disclose any private facts about him. The story did not discuss a controversial issue which required the presentation of alternative views; it focused on one man’s personal experiences....

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 [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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Devlin Radio Show, host Martin Devlin was forcefully outspoken about an abusive text message he had received from the complainant, TF. Mr Devlin read out the complainant’s mobile phone number multiple times and phoned the complainant on air while making abusive comments about them. The Authority upheld a complaint that Mr Devlin breached the complainant’s privacy. While the Authority did not condone the strongly-worded text message initially sent to Mr Devlin, Mr Devlin’s response was disproportionate and unprofessional, even in the context of the robust talkback radio environment. The complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to their personal mobile number, and Mr Devlin’s comments amounted to a sustained and personal attack against the complainant, making use of private information to personalise the abuse and implicitly encouraging harassment of TF....

Summary The successful apprehension of a drug smuggler by Customs officials was shown on Inside New Zealand: Protecting our Borders on TV3 on 31 March at 8. 30pm. C, the woman featured, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act that her privacy was breached. She maintained that she was clearly recognisable from the footage and argued that the report which showed her arrest ignored her rights as an individual because she did not have any warning of its broadcast, and did not give consent to the broadcast. C also complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about breaches of other broadcasting standards. Those matters were not referred to the Authority. TV3 maintained that C was not identifiable from the footage, and it therefore did not consider that there had been any breach of her privacy....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item on alleged police pack rape of Louise Nicholas – footage shown of former police house where rapes allegedly occurred – current house owner alleged item breached privacy and was unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identification of current owner of house – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday reported on allegations of possible improper behaviour by the police, and a cover up in relation to accusations of rape by Louise Nicholas against three policemen. It was broadcast on TV One on 21 March at 7. 30pm. [2] The item included shots of the former police house where the rapes were alleged to have occurred. A car was shown in the driveway of the house....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about woman who was soon to have a mastectomy because of breast cancer – item said woman had been told by a doctor, the complainant, almost a year previously that she had nothing to worry about – same advice said to be given six months later – woman referred to National Women’s Hospital on unrelated matter – woman again expressed concern about a breast lump – Hospital arranged mammogram and tumour revealed – reporter’s investigation allegedly involved breach of privacy and was unfair – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy – preparation) – preparation did not involve privacy breach – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness – preparation) – manner assertive but not unfair – not upheld Standard 4 (balance – broadcast) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy…...

  BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1/94 Dated the 19th day of January 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by Mrs S. Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

ComplaintLove Thy Neighbour – examined dispute between neighbours – complainant declined invitation to participate – address disclosed – owner and house shown – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – principles (i) and (v) relevant – (vi) applies – public interest defence applicable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Love Thy Neighbour examines neighbour disputes. A boundary dispute between neighbours in Whangarei was one of the items dealt with in the repeat episode broadcast at 11. 15am on TV One on 7 September 2002. [2] B Jobe complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the disclosure of the information which identified them and their house breached their privacy. [3] In response, TVNZ advised the Authority that the item had reported the circumstances of a neighbourhood dispute, and had not disclosed any private information....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 34/94 Decision No: 35/94 Dated the 2nd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by JOHN EARNSHAW of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-2060 PDF46. 29 KB Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – interviewed a woman who was a committed patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment & Treatment) Act 1992 and receiving electroconvulsive therapy – woman said that she wanted the treatment to stop – item reported the view of the psychiatric hospital that the woman “was not well enough at the time of the interview to have given informed consent to it” – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 1 – disclosed private facts about woman – woman not capable of giving informed consent – no public interest in disclosing the private facts – upheldOrderSection 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,500This headnote does not form part of the decision....