Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News breached the complainant and her grandchild’s privacy. The item, which reported on the implications of GP shortages in Northland, included footage of the complainant and her grandchild (who was in a moonboot with crutches) leaving a medical centre, and of them in the waiting room. The Authority acknowledged the sensitive nature of health information and encouraged broadcasters to obtain the consent of persons filmed in a medical centre (particularly where children are involved). However, the Authority found there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular facts disclosed (being attendance at a medical centre) noting the complainant was initially depicted outside the centre, from a public footpath, where there was no expectation of privacy. No additional information was disclosed by the subsequent footage from within the waiting room. Not Upheld: Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about items on Newshub and The AM Show, which reported on a Police raid of a gang house and featured footage of the complainant’s property, with the house number blurred. The Authority found that the privacy standard did not apply in this case, as the complainant was not identifiable in the broadcast and no private information or material was disclosed about them. As the house was only filmed to the extent visible from the street, the broadcaster did not intrude upon the complainant’s interest in solitude or seclusion in a way that was highly offensive. The Authority recognised the public interest in the broadcast and found that the harm alleged to have been caused by the complainant did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression.   Not Upheld: Privacy  ...

SummaryThe police response to a drink-drive incident was featured on Emergency Heroes broadcast by TV3 on 23 February 1999 at 7. 30pm. A man was seen being arrested for driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. His voice and facial features were partially obscured in the programme, although promos for the programme were broadcast unaltered. JD, the convicted driver, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the promos, which did not conceal his identity at all, and by the programme, because he maintained it inadequately concealed his identity. TV3 Network Services Ltd responded to the Authority that JD had given consent at the time of his arrest to the broadcast of the footage, and had known the purpose for which it was being filmed....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

...

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about marketing 42 Below vodka in the American market – featured interview with gay bar owner – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed – consent given for interview – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 12 June 2005 featured a marketing manager, James Dale, who had been appointed to promote a New Zealand vodka called 42 Below in the American market. [2] The item included an interview with the owner of a gay bar, John Libonati, who had sent Mr Dale an email condemning the disparaging comments Mr Dale had made about gay culture. Mr Libonati said that he had received a reply from James Dale which had included a number of insults....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Parekura Horomia – comments made during filming break – broadcast of private conversation – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – Privacy Principle (iii) – intentional interference with Mr Horomia's interest in solitude or seclusion – offensive – no consent – insufficient public interest – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An interview with the Minister of Maori Affairs designate, Parekura Horomia, was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 24 July 2000. In an addendum to the interview, viewers heard a recording of comments made by Mr Horomia during a filming break about his distrust of the media. Jo Crowley complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached Mr Horomia's privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant – interviewed one of the hostages – image was blurred – allegedly unfair and in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – hostage not identifiable in the broadcast – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – hostage consented to the interview – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 27 January 2009, reported on an armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant in Auckland in which five staff had been held hostage. The reporter stated that "a female hostage told 3 News she kept reliving the moments she thought would be her last, and she still can’t bear to be identified"....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about a 15-year-old girl who had run away from her home in Auckland – showed the girl in security camera footage in a shop with two young companions – included footage of the house she was found in – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and children’s interestsFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boys not portrayed as being at fault – not unfair – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 21 February 2005 told the story of a 15-year-old Auckland girl, Emma, who had run away from home to a family in Te Awamutu....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on house fire in the North Shore reported that a person had been found dead in the garage – included brief footage of the complainant and his wife who owned the house – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose private facts about the complainant or his wife – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 3 July 2010, reported on a house fire on the North Shore. The news reader stated that police were investigating after a person had been found dead in a car in a burning garage, and that the death was being treated as suspicious....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-019:Clements and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-019 PDF712. 42 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers. The roofer was interviewed on his doorstep, and explained he had mental health issues. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the man’s privacy because it revealed his mental health status. The roofer willingly discussed his mental health with the reporter, including on camera, as part of his explanation in response to the customers’ claims, so he could not reasonably expect that information would remain private. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....

Summary The final episode in the series Weddings reported that a marriage featured in an earlier episode had broken up after two months. It contained footage of the wedding shown in the earlier programme, and included comment from the bride about the reasons for the break-up. The episode was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 14 June 1999. MT, the bridegroom involved, complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast had breached his privacy. He had declined to take part in the follow-up programme, he wrote, and had informed the programme maker that he wanted neither his name used nor his face shown. He said he felt exploited by the use of the wedding photographs on the programme....

SummaryA segment of Motorway Patrol broadcast on 22 July 1999 on TV2 at 7. 30pm showed four people undertaking evidential breath tests, having been suspected of driving while intoxicated. Two had their identity concealed by electronic masking. The other two were clearly identifiable. Atihana Johns complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of his niece being breath tested by police at the police station was unfair to her and breached her privacy because her identity had not been concealed. He complained that she had been treated in a racist and contemptible manner, and that the broadcast of the programme had caused his niece and her whanau considerable distress. His complaint that the programme breached his niece’s right to privacy was referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported that a man had drowned trying to save two children – showed footage of ambulance officers performing CPR and then apologising to the man’s family because they could not revive him – showed family grieving next to the body – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – item included prolonged and close-up footage of grieving family members – offensive intrusion into highly vulnerable and distressing moment – privacy of family members breached – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – unclassified news programme aimed at adults – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent controversy about the noise levels at the Western Springs Speedway in Auckland was discussed on Close Up @ 7 on TV One at 7pm on 17 December 2004. The item included a studio discussion with a member of the local residents’ group that had petitioned to get the noise levels reduced, and an Auckland City Councillor. [2] The item began by showing the signatures of those whose petition over the noise levels had been presented to the Environment Court....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast of Punjabi talkback programme, Dasam Granth Da Sach, in which the hosts identified the complainant and broadcast audio clips of him speaking about various religious topics. While the complainant was clearly identified, the Authority found no private information or material was disclosed during the broadcast over which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The information disclosed during the broadcast was available in the public domain, and in these circumstances, the Authority found that its intervention in upholding the complaint would represent an unreasonable and unjustified limit on the right to freedom of expression....