Search Rapua

SummaryIn the context of a discussion about driving habits on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 14 January 1999, the show’s host described how that morning he was passed at speed by a car which then crossed all three lanes to exit from the motorway. He identified the car by its personalised license plate, saying it was lucky there was not much traffic on the road as that sort of driving contributed to disaster on the roads. R, owner of the car, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast was abusive and an invasion of his privacy. He denied that he had been driving dangerously, and pointed out that the alleged incident occurred at about 6. 15am when no other vehicles were in sight....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given to Dr Fahey to answer all serious allegations – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no unfairness in circumstances – personal information justified anonymity – timing of broadcast justified – public interest – no uphold (3) Standard G5 – no uphold (4) Standard G19 – editing fair and not distorted – no uphold (5) Privacy – no breach for police station footage – consent given to interview – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Dr Morgan Fahey, a Christchurch GP and mayoral candidate, was the subject of a 20/20 item entitled A Position of Power broadcast on TV3 between 7. 30 – 8....

Complaint Private Investigators – complainants’ boat repossessed from their property – no attempt to pixellate them – humiliating – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy principle (i) – facts disclosed objectionable – no public interest – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement; compensation of $750 to each of the complainants This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The repossession of a boat on which money was owing for the outboard motor was shown in a segment on Private Investigators broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 November 2002. Private Investigators is a reality series which shows the range of activities undertaken by private investigators. [2] Mr and Mrs B Radford, the owners of the boat, complained through their solicitors to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached their privacy....

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

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The complainant made a direct privacy complaint about a discussion on Chinese Voice Radio, alleging that it breached her child’s privacy because it disclosed details of her dental treatment. The Authority found that the broadcast did not breach any individual’s privacy, as no one was identifiable in the broadcast. The complainant’s concerns about the dentist’s actions and the disclosure of details about the treatment were more appropriately dealt with by other agencies. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During NZ Life, a talkback programme on Chinese Voice Radio 99. 4FM, the hosts discussed allegations made by a caller about a dentist who treated her child. The programme subject to complaint was broadcast on 13 February 2014. [2] CK, the caller, made a direct privacy complaint to this Authority, alleging that the broadcast breached her child’s privacy....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-026 Decision No: 1996-027 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SUZI ARCHER of Wellington Broadcaster PIRATE FM of Wellington J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-006:Walker and Triple M Ltd - 1990-006 PDF1. 3 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live broadcast two items that were critical of Ranfurly Veterans Home and Hospital, relating to an incident in which a resident, Q, was found lying on the driveway after falling from his power chair. The Authority upheld one aspect of the accuracy complaint in relation to another incident involving a resident, F, and upheld the complaint that the items were unfair to Q, and to Ranfurly. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the residents' privacy was breached. The Authority did not make any order as only limited aspects were upheld. Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness Not Upheld: Privacy No Order Introduction [1] Campbell Live broadcast two items that were critical of Ranfurly Veterans Home and Hospital (Ranfurly)....

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....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-001:Cook and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-001 PDF301. 93 KB...

ComplaintInside New Zealand – theft in the workplace – privacy – unfair – police diversion scheme – inaccurateFindingsPrivacy – no identification – no private facts – no uphold Standards G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G14, G16 and G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled "Stealing on the Job" was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2000 at 8. 30pm. Hidden camera footage showed employees in various workplaces stealing money from their employers. Promos for the programme were shown in the days preceding the broadcast. R, the father of one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his son’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the programme and the promos for it....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item showed autopsy photographs of child who had been beaten to death – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness, programme classification, children’s interests, and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased individuals – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard does not apply to deceased individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – standard does not apply to unclassified news programmes – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently mindful of the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised care and discretion in broadcasting the photographs – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....