Search Rapua

SummaryA prison officer who was accused of impregnating a prison inmate was the subject of a news item broadcast on 3 National News on 12 August 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. B of Wellington complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her family’s privacy was breached, as footage of their family home was included in the item. In fact, she wrote, it was her partner’s brother who had been accused. He had never lived at their address. She emphasised that her family had been caused great distress by the broadcast. TV3 responded that it went to B’s address having made its own inquiries as to where the prison officer lived. It advised that it was apparent when the reporter knocked on the door that the man who answered the door did not wish to be interviewed....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-005:McAllister and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-005 PDF1. 03 MB...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on striking workers from recycling company Paper Reclaim who wanted a pay increase of one dollar extra an hour – stated that they worked in “dirty, unsanitary conditions” and that there was a rat problem at Paper Reclaim’s plant – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and privacy Campbell Live promos – promos on TV3 and Radio Live referred to working with rubbish and rats for low pay – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness FindingsCampbell Live Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme created strong impression that Paper Reclaim’s premises were unsanitary and rat-infested – misleading – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to suggest that Paper Reclaim had a serious rat problem – Paper Reclaim was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations about its working conditions and rat infestation – door-stepping not unfair – upheld Standard…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-023 Decision No: 1998-024 Dated the 5th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by J of Palmerston North Broadcaster 92. 2XS (Palmerston North) S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintJason Lewis complained that an episode of Coastwatch breached his privacy and was unfair. The item showed him being issued with a $250 fine for having five undersized paua in his catch, two years after he was filmed. The complainant said he had not known he was being filmed for television, and that showing the incident two years after it happened was unfair, particularly as the fine had been waived a week after it was issued. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said the programme had not broadcast any private facts about the complainant, who had been filmed in a public place. Although his fine was subsequently rescinded, the fact remained that he had been caught in possession of undersized paua, and this was still on his record at the Ministry of Fisheries....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go dealing with the ‘flushability’ of nappy liners breached the accuracy, fairness, privacy and balance standards. The Authority found the programme was not inaccurate or misleading in suggesting the liners were not ‘flushable’. It found the complainant was not treated unfairly as a result of the broadcast of a recorded ‘cold call’ and the complainant’s views were fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of privacy standards and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Balance...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq, shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – broadcast was in the public interest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An item on One News at 6pm on 30 September 2004 showed video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq. The video showed Mr Bigley shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government. [2] The introduction to the piece indicated that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had shifted position slightly and hinted that some contact with the hostage takers might be attempted. Complaint [3] J M Copland complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM – news item reported on the trial of a man facing drugs charges – named a witness in the trial – allegedly in breached of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – open court hearing with no name suppression – name of witness already in the public domain – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item on More FM, broadcast between 6. 30am and 8am on Friday 25 July 2008, reported on the court trial of Palmerston North man, SC, who was facing charges relating to methamphetamine possession and supply. The presenter introduced the item by stating: Palmerston North man, [SC], is on trial in the High Court on charges of possession and possession to sell methamphetamine....

The chair, Joanne Morris, declared a conflict of interest and declined to participate in the determination of this complaint....

The majority of the Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about an item on Asliyat responding to petitions made in opposition to Radio Virsa staff, in relation to Gurdwara management and the sale of a Gurdwara property. The host called into question the righteousness of the petitioners as Sikhs, including the complainant’s son, who the host identified as someone at the centre of a family scandal (which included issues of drug addiction and allegations of theft and other ‘bad things’). The complainant submitted the broadcast identified his son and disclosed private information in a way that was highly offensive and damaging to the reputation of his son and son’s family. Based on the information disclosed, the majority of the Authority found the complainant’s son was not identifiable beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matter dealt with in the broadcast....

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(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.  ...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – news items discussed identity of a deceased teenager, despite being informed in the programme that police were not releasing the deceased’s name in accordance with a request from his family – disclosure of deceased’s identity allegedly in breach of his family’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – deceased’s family identified through their connection with him – no private facts revealed because deceased’s identity had already been disclosed on social networking sites so was in the public realm, even if not officially confirmed by police – broadcaster took steps, as soon as reasonably practicable, to ensure the deceased was not named again in the programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-108–110:Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Inc, Armstrong and daughters and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-108–110719. 35 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-033:Rutherford and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-033 PDF1. 11 MB...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

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...