Search

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 1989Q+A – panel discussion about immigration policy in New Zealand – one panellist stated that meeting immigration criteria was not an easy process and included a test for syphilis – host responded “How did the test turn out? I’m sorry! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – question was light-hearted and intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – unaccompanied children unlikely to watch news programmes – host’s question would have gone over the heads of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Darpan – report on first Hindu conference in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, programme information and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – report was not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard relates to an individual – no individual specified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in the item – balance standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Council spokesperson explained what the conference was about – viewers were made aware that the conference had a number of themes – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – report was a fair and accurate reflection of the event – not upheld Standard 7 (programme…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item about a woman who believed a company called Christine Layby owed her $900 – woman shown visiting the company director’s home to demand a refund – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – ownership of a business not a private fact – disclosure of that fact not highly offensive – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine three aspects – other aspects related to website material only or interviewees’ own views – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant had sufficient opportunity to comment – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary An episode of a reality series entitled Petvet was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 7 October 1999. It followed the day to day activities at a veterinary clinic in Lower Hutt and included a sequence showing the clinic’s dealings with a couple who wished to have their cat put down. L, the cat’s owner, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the sequence breached her right to privacy. She complained that the documentary had portrayed her and her partner as callous owners of animals and they had been subjected to criticism as a result. She also noted that the programme had identified her by name and, in addition, had included a sequence showing the veterinarian dialling their confidential telephone number which, she said, could have led to "menacing phone calls"....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News Tonight – item reported on an Auckland homicide – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – decline to determine in all the circumstances under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 26 September 2008, reported that a man had been stabbed and killed in Auckland. In the first part of the item, a reporter stated that, "[The victim’s] family arrive at the murder scene today, facing the tragic loss of a loved one", accompanied by a shot of three men peering into an area covered by a tarpaulin. The reporter also quoted a sympathy card left at the crime scene, saying, "What a tragic waste of a fine life. ....

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....

ComplaintInside New Zealand – debt collection – privacyFindings Privacy – identification – private facts revealed – no public interest – upholdOrderCompensation of $500 to complainant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A documentary about debtors and debt recovery workers was the subject of an Inside New Zealand programme broadcast on TV3 on 7 June 2000 at 8. 30pm. A debt recovery worker was seen outside the home of a couple with a number of children, who were said to have a debt of $1600. M complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy and the privacy of her family was violated by the broadcast, which included footage of family members filmed through a fence, and a recording of the conversation between M and her husband and the debt recovery worker....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre Ltd – discussed the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, as well as some of the terms and conditions – item also reported on another contract between the parties for renovation work to be done on Ms K’s property – allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item distinguished statements of fact from opinion and comment – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the release form signed by Ms K permitted the complainant to discuss the matter…...

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....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting that 17-month-old girl had suffered head injuries at a Christchurch home – showed street name and number of house – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant did not identify an individual whose privacy was allegedly breached – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 26 October 2006, reported that a 17-month-old girl had been flown to Starship Hospital after she had suffered serious head injuries while visiting a Christchurch home. It said that police were investigating how the injuries had occurred, and whether they were accidental or intentional. The reporter referred to the name of the street where the home was located, and the street sign was shown....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about a 15-year-old girl who had run away from her home in Auckland – showed the girl in security camera footage in a shop with two young companions – included footage of the house she was found in – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and children’s interestsFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boys not portrayed as being at fault – not unfair – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 21 February 2005 told the story of a 15-year-old Auckland girl, Emma, who had run away from home to a family in Te Awamutu....