Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item covered the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court explaining how his relationship with Ms Elliott began – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of relationship were not sufficiently explicit to require a warning – high degree of public interest – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – deceased person not an “individual” for the purposes of Broadcasting Act 1989 – privacy standard does not apply to deceased persons – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Thursday 9 July 2009, covered the day’s events at the trial of Clayton Weatherston, who was accused of murdering Sophie Elliott....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on an Auckland homicide – showed victim’s wife and three teenage children being driven away in police car – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – footage of police car was taken in a public place – victim’s family likely vulnerable but disclosure of footage not highly offensive – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 26 September 2008, it was reported that a man had been stabbed and killed in Auckland. In the following item, One News reported from the suburb in which the man lived and interviewed one of his work colleagues, a man who witnessed the incident, and a member of the Auckland Police....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police – twice showed the complainant being arrested and taken to the police station to “detox” after solvent abuse – complainant’s first name was disclosed and his house was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable due to use of his first name, full length shots of his body and clothing, footage of his property and street, recordings of his voice – complainant’s solvent abuse was a private fact – disclosure of complainant’s solvent abuse in the late 1990s would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – public interest did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – breach of complainant’s privacy was also unfair – unfair to re-broadcast footage more than 10 years after filming – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of…...

ComplaintOne News – item concerning Prime Minister’s announcement not to attend at Waitangi for services – included archival footage of Prime Minister upset at previous Waitangi Day service – tasteless – unfair FindingsStandard 1 – historical significance – contextual relevance – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair to Prime Minister – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 3 February 2003 concerned the Prime Minister’s announcement that she would not attend services at Waitangi on Waitangi Day. The item included archival footage of the Prime Minister crying at a previous Waitangi Day celebration. [2] Mr Penrice complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item should not have included this historical footage of the Prime Minister....

Two complaints from the subjects of a Fair Go investigation have not been upheld. The investigation focussed on the sale of a massage product to an elderly man with severe foot pain. The Authority found the privacy of the salesperson was not breached through the brief broadcast of their business card which contained their image and contact details. The Authority found this did not amount to a highly offensive disclosure of private information. The Authority also found the broadcasts did not breach the balance, accuracy and fairness standards, finding that the broadcasts were unlikely to significantly misinform viewers regarding the sale of the product and the product itself. The Authority also found that, while there was public interest in the story, it did not amount to a controversial issue of public importance for the purposes of the balance standard....

Summary On two occasions on 31 July 1998 between 9. 00-9. 30am, a caller to Hot 93FM referred to the winner of an on-air competition as "That bitch E…C…". The caller said she had helped the winner with the answers to the competition, but that the winner had refused to share the prize of a dinner for four. Station staff then made two hoax calls in a similar vein. Ms C, the winner of the competition, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy was breached by the broadcast. She also complained directly to the station that it contravened the requirement for broadcasters to observe standards of good taste and decency. She reported that she had been extremely upset by the calls....

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....

A PDF of Decision 1999-053 can be downloaded here:Loos and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1999-053 PDF185. 19 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of electricians in Target house – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – complainant was identifiable – complainant had interest in seclusion in Target house – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – complainant did not give his informed consent to the broadcast – insufficient public interest in footage to justify the breach of privacy – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, featured hidden camera footage of employees from three different electrical companies who were called into the Target house to install a heated towel rail and change a light fitting. The companies were each given a score out of ten for their employees’ performance....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Sunday, featuring a family who complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) about allegedly inadequate maternity healthcare following the death of their baby, breached the fairness and privacy standards. The Authority found it was unfair to name the complainant, HV, as the consultant obstetrician on the case prior to the HDC completing its investigation or making any findings. Singling out HV in this way had the effect of predetermining an adverse conclusion about their responsibility (whether or not that was the broadcaster’s intention), and the complainant was not informed about the proposed broadcast or given an opportunity to respond or mitigate any reputational impact. On privacy, the Authority found the fact HV was subject to an HDC complaint was information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from two complainants, a Christian organisation and its director, about an episode of Sunday which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. The director, ‘X’, was filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon X’s interest in seclusion and that, on its face, this broadcast breached their privacy. However, the Authority found that the high level of public interest, both in the programme as a whole and in the hidden camera footage, justified the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera....

The Authority has reconsidered and not upheld a privacy complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on residents’ concerns about ‘boy racers’ in a particular Christchurch suburb, following TVNZ appealing the Authority’s original decision to the High Court. The item featured an interview with a resident reported as being ‘too scared to be identified’. The Authority originally found she was identifiable and the High Court dismissed the appeal on that point but directed the Authority to reconsider the remaining issues in light of new affidavit evidence filed by TVNZ in the appeal. Having reconsidered the matter, the Authority remained of the view the disclosure of the woman’s identity in the circumstances would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person. However, based on the affidavit evidence the Authority found the defence of informed consent was available to the broadcaster. Not Upheld: 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)....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-068 Decision No: 1998-069 Dated the 25th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by NEW ZEALAND POLICE (OPERATION TAM) TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintInside New Zealand – documentary about fires – suspected arson in suspected drug house – consent to film not sought from owners FindingsPrivacy – individual not identified – no private facts – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary about the cost and frequency of fires in New Zealand was broadcast on TV3 on 30 August 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm. A segment dealing with arson showed what was described as a suspected drug house which had been destroyed by fire. N, who claimed to be the owner of the property shown, complained about the programme to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The complaint was accepted as a referral under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. In the complaint, N noted that neither she nor her husband had given consent for the broadcast....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm concerning a car accident breached several standards by featuring images of dead bodies in the car wreck. The complainant believed there were dead bodies shown in the wreck, which they found highly distressing. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s distress, however, after carefully reviewing the broadcast, found that no bodies were featured. In considering the images of the car wreck shown, the Authority considered that the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards, so the good taste and decency standard was not breached. It further found that an audience advisory was not required, and the programme information standard was not breached. The balance, accuracy, privacy, and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached....

ComplaintPolice Ten 7 – complainant arrested by police – shown without consent – breach of privacy complaintFindingsStandard 3 – Privacy Principle i) – filming in public place – no highly offensive facts disclosed – Privacy Principle v) – name disclosed but consent form later signed – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The series Police Ten 7 follows a Police team while on duty. The questioning and subsequent arrest of the complainant for obscene language was one of the items dealt with in the episode broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 21 August 2003. [2] MD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that being shown on the programme without his consent breached his privacy....

The Authority has accepted jurisdiction to consider a complaint under the privacy standard made by the Privacy Commissioner. The Authority found the Privacy Commissioner had standing to make the complaint under the Broadcasting Act 1989. It also found it is capable of considering the complaint on its merits and would not be subject to undue influence or bias as a result of the complainant’s status. Finally, it agreed the complaint raised some matters outside the scope of the complaints process and, in accordance with its usual procedures, such matters would not be considered. Accepted Jurisdiction...

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....