Search Rapua

SummaryConcern about repeat drink/driving offences was dealt with in an item broadcast on both 3 News and Nightline, on TV3 between 6. 00–7. 00pm and 10. 30–11. 00pm respectively on 22 February 1999. The item included footage of the police dealing with drivers who had been drinking, and included a segment showing a woman struggling violently as she was put into a police car. Ms M, the struggling woman, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the item breached her privacy. The incident screened had occurred seven years previously, she wrote. She recalled that she had been struggling at the time as she considered that she had not been treated fairly by the police when they insisted that she undergo a breath test although she had not been driving. Subsequently, she advised, she was convicted of assault but the drink driving charge had been dismissed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of caregivers hired to look after elderly actor – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – caregivers had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – individual caregivers did not provide informed consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of individuals’ privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6c – footage obtained “through misrepresentation or deception” – not required to use deception in the public interest – unfair to broadcast hidden camera footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on 3 July 2007....

ComplaintMore FM – radio competition – disclosure of work-place – unfair – breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (v) – complainant’s work-place private information – uphold – apology to complainant sufficientPrinciple 5 – broadcaster upheld complaint – action taken sufficientNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] On 10 May 2002, B entered a radio competition on More FM in Dunedin. B’s work-place details were broadcast, after he had specifically stated that he did not want his work-place disclosed on-air. [2] B complained to More FM, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached his privacy and was a "blatant and deceitful" breach of the requirement that broadcasters deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in a broadcast. He also complained directly to the Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the same broadcast had breached his privacy....

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....

In an episode of Mai Home Run, one of the radio presenters related a story about accidentally taking and not returning a bag containing items, including a gaming console, belonging to Lil’ Romeo. The presenter also disclosed the name of one of the people involved in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item breached the privacy standard, finding that the named individual was identifiable and would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information disclosed. The Authority also found the disclosure to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, as it had the potential to significantly damage the named person’s reputation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the law and order standard, finding that in context the broadcast did not encourage or actively promote serious anti-social or illegal behaviour....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-037 Dated the 28th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SEAN N JOSEPH of Wellington Broadcaster CAPITAL FM LIMITED of Wellington J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – anonymous caller revealed that named person had visited a medical clinic – disclosed confidential medical details – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Principle 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $2,067 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On the afternoon of Monday 9 October 2006, the hosts on The Edge radio station stated that they had “a bit of inside goss” from an anonymous caller who had previously worked at a medical centre for two weeks. The hosts asked “are you breaking patient confidentiality here or something? ” to which the caller laughed....

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 –…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Hauraki Breakfast Show Deborah Stokes, mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, rang the studio to complain about what she considered to be unfair comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. Mrs Stokes asked to speak with someone off air. Host Matt Heath assured Mrs Stokes she was off air, when in fact the conversation was being broadcast live on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached Mrs Stokes’ privacy. Mrs Stokes had a reasonable expectation that, in the circumstances, her phone call and the conversation would remain private. The recording and broadcast of her conversation, in circumstances where she had expressly asked for privacy was objectionable and would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in the complainant’s position....

Summary An item on the Holmes programme examined the situation of a woman and her eight year old son who was described as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. Footage of the child, exhibiting what were said to be some behavioural problems of the syndrome, was shown on the programme which was broadcast on TV One on 4 March 1999 commencing at 7. 00 pm. Ms Burnell complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme violated the child’s rights of privacy and confidentiality. He was identified by his first name, his face was visible, and he clearly expressed his total opposition to being filmed for public viewing, she wrote....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about fathers frustrated with the Family Court system – included interview with father who had been involved in custody dispute – identified his eight-year-old daughter – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, in breach of daughter’s privacy and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts about child – not in child’s best interests – no public interest in disclosing facts – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster presented significant viewpoints on controversial issue under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and guideline 9i – child unnecessarily identified and exploited – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 13(1)(d) – payment to JB for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $3,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500 This headnote…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about ongoing Family Court proceedings concerning custody of a child – father interviewed anonymously and gave details of evidence and proceedings – brief visuals of baby – mother believed that as baby was identifiable, she was also identifiable – personal details broadcast about her – some allegedly inaccurate – child shown without mother’s permission – alleged breach of privacy of mother and baby – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – referral outside statutory time limit – s....

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....

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

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...

SummaryThe results of a paternity test were revealed live during the broadcast of You be the Judge on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The child, who was 6 years old, was present in the studio when it was revealed that his mother’s former husband was his father. The Commissioner for Children, Ursula Cheer, John Caldwell and David Rowe, Gillian Davies, Marianne Hardgrave, Mike Doolan on behalf of the Children Young Persons and their Families Agency, Charles and Helen Harrington-Johnson, Bronwyn Hayward on behalf of the Children’s Television Foundation and Aroha Reihana complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast violated the child’s right to privacy....

SummaryAn item on Holmes examined "Operation Youthcare", a police and community initiative dealing with some problems arising from children and young people frequenting the city centre of Nelson at night. Part of the filming took place in the police station where a number of young people were being held or questioned. It was reported that, in some cases, their parents were summoned to the station. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 June 1999, commencing at 7. 00pm. G complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his and his daughter’s privacy were breached by the filming. Both he and his daughter were identifiable, he wrote. He also complained that the broadcast of the details of a private conversation between his daughter and a police officer breached her privacy....