Search Rapua

Summary A dispute between neighbours was put to the audience of You be the Judge for resolution in the episode broadcast on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The item included footage, filmed by the aggrieved neighbour, of two people leaving his neighbour’s home at 4. 31am. He described such visitors to his neighbour in general terms as her "zombie mates. " C, one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that he and his wife considered that the broadcast had invaded their privacy. First, he argued, the complainant should never have filmed them, and secondly, the footage should never have been broadcast. He said they also objected to being described as "zombie mates"....

SummaryPolice were hunting an armed robber who had shot a security guard in a shopping centre, according to news reports on 3 News and Nightline broadcast on TV3 on 26 July 1999. Footage accompanying the item showed police Armed Offenders Squad members approaching a house in Auckland. S, C and E complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that their privacy was breached because the footage showed their home. They reported that their home was recognisable to friends and family and that they and their children were upset and distraught at the implication they could be linked to the robbery. TV3 responded that the footage of the property search was carefully edited to ensure that the street and house were not identifiable to the general public, and the occupants were not identified....

ComplaintTarget – unauthorised filming on private premises – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy principles (i) and (iii) applied – footage inoffensive – no breach of privacy – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A hidden camera was used on a Target programme broadcast on TV3 on 9 July 2000 to assess whether a car’s wheel alignment had been properly carried out. The footage broadcast included pictures of the outside of the business premises, and members of the staff dealing with the customer. Chris Clarke, the proprietor of Action Auto Services, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about the broadcast, arguing that the filming had been carried out unlawfully on his premises. His complaint concerned the promos for the programme as well as the programme itself....

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(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on woman who sought a refund for baby items purchased from the complainant’s business – reporter approached complainant for an interview at her place of business – footage and audio recording of the conversation was broadcast – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no previous attempts were made to obtain comment before door-stepping the owners at their place of business – covert filming and recording of conversation meant that the owners were not properly informed of the nature of their participation as required by guideline 6c – owners specifically stated that they did not want to be filmed or recorded – tone of programme was negative towards owners and their position was not adequately presented – owners treated unfairly – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not even-handed as required by…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A documentary series Inconceivable followed the fertility struggles of eight New Zealand couples over the course of two years. During this episode, one of the couples went to the doctor for a blood test. Contact details on the test documentation were briefly shown, including the woman’s full name and her mobile number, and the couple’s home phone number and partial street address. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this breached the couple’s privacy. The broadcaster advised that the couple reviewed the episode prior to screening and gave their full and informed consent for it to be broadcast. The shot in question was very brief, such that many viewers would likely have overlooked the level of detail shown....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Heartland – programme included image of the complainant – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard P9 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed – disclosure of the footage of him would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A episode of Heartland called “Grey Lynn: Summer in the City” was broadcast on TVNZ Heartland at 10. 10pm on 27 November 2010, and repeated at 8am on 28 November 2010. Near the beginning of the programme, a shot of the complainant leaning out a window in his house was briefly shown. Referral to the Authority[2] Te Awhitu Ransfield lodged a direct privacy complaint with the Authority under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-115 Decision No: 1996-116 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by STEVE CONWAY of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintShred – offensive behaviour – offensive language – sexually explicit graffiti named people living in Ohakune – privacy of named individuals breached FindingsG2 – currently accepted norms of decency and taste – uphold Privacy – no private facts disclosed – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statementCosts of $1000 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Graffiti seen on a playground structure in Ohakune formed the basis for a skit on the snowboarding programme Shred, broadcast on TV2 at 10. 30pm on 7 September 2000. The presenter read out some of the sexually explicit graffiti, which included the first names of several people. Dennis Beytagh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that he objected "in the strongest possible terms" to the content of the programme. He said he had never heard nor seen such explicit obscenities and descriptions of aberrant sexual practices being broadcast....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on a fatal bus crash that occurred south of Gisborne on Christmas Eve in 2016. The bus was carrying students and teachers from a visiting Tongan school band. The item featured photos, sourced from a public Facebook page for the Tongan community, of some of the injured passengers in hospital. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached the injured passengers’ privacy. While the photos were in the public domain, those featured did not consent to their images appearing in the news item. As injured patients receiving medical care, they were in a particularly vulnerable position....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that a hip hop song contained racial slurs (including the n-word). The Authority noted the broadcaster apologised to the complainant for the offence caused and removed the song from its playlist. The Authority considered this action was sufficient and, in all the circumstances, it was not necessary to determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-035 Dated the 17th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEPHEN P IHAKA of Kaitaia Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about CCTV and New Zealand increasingly becoming a surveillance society – included footage of two school pupils fighting – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – poor quality footage – no identifying features – pupils not identifiable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 22 June 2009, looked at the increase in CCTV video surveillance in New Zealand and whether the country was becoming a “surveillance society”. [2] The item included brief footage showing two school pupils fighting. The footage was grainy and looked to have been recorded on a cell phone. It showed a group of pupils standing around and jeering as one boy walked up to another and punched him in the head....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and Lies in Cambodia – documentary about New Zealand man jailed in Cambodia for the rape of five teenage girls – interviewed a Swiss man who was assisting with the case and who had been accused but acquitted of similar crimes – filmed man with a hidden camera – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of hidden camera footage in breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in the footage – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – man treated unfairly by broadcast of hidden camera footage – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....