Search

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on judicial review proceedings concerning the Parole Board’s decision to release convicted rapist Peter McNamara after serving one third of his sentence – contained footage of Mr McNamara on his driveway and of a child getting into his car – item stated that Mr McNamara had “smuggled” his semen out of prison – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – child not identified in the item – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “smuggled” accurate – viewers not misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr McNamara and the child were treated fairly – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 (fairness) This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item discussed a recently conducted study by a New Zealand woman investigating the early sexualisation of pre-teen girls – showed a photo of a then 11-year-old girl from the pages of Crème magazine – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to young girl – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on 11 June 2007 at 7pm on TV3, discussed a recently conducted study by a New Zealand woman investigating the early sexualisation of pre-teen girls, or “tweenies”. The study had discovered that, for girls, magazines were very influential and, in some instances, more important than their brothers and sisters....

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 Although his fine was subsequently rescinded, the fact remained that he had been caught in possession of undersized paua, and this was still on his record at the Ministry of Fisheries....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South Park – picture of a statue of Jesus Christ – voice said “Look at me, I’m Jesus. Would you like me to crap on you Mr Bush?...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-002633 PDF78. 95 KB Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand – Stake Out: Models Exposed – hidden camera footage of magazine editor photographing models in his bedroom and in an apartment – allegations in the programme that he was not honest about how the models’ photographs would be used – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy principles (i), (iii) and (vi) relevant – no private facts revealed therefore privacy principle (i) not breached – broadcast of hidden camera footage was in breach of privacy principle (iii) – no public interest – upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $3,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $393....

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…...

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 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on singles looking for love – showed footage of people apparently at singles party – complainants shown – complainants were not at party – footage of them taken several years ago – allegedly breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair – accuracy and fairness complaints upheld – privacy complaint declined – complainants referred privacy complaint to AuthorityFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] On 29 May 2006, TV3’s Campbell Live, broadcast at 7. 00pm, included an item about singles “looking for love”. The item focussed on a singles party held recently in Auckland, and showed numerous shots of people socialising, apparently at the party, including a shot of the complainants smiling for the camera....

...

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item showed autopsy photographs of child who had been beaten to death – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness, programme classification, children’s interests, and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased individuals – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard does not apply to deceased individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – standard does not apply to unclassified news programmes – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently mindful of the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised care and discretion in broadcasting the photographs – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police College – reality series following new police recruits – showed man being ejected from Westpac Stadium – man was seen resisting attempts to remove him and shouting abuse at police – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle (ii) – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6b only applies to planned appearances – Mr Walden unnecessarily identified under guideline 6f, but overall treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Police College was a reality series which traced the progress of cadets through the Police College. In an episode broadcast on TV2 at 10....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-1299 PDF930. 17 KB Complaint under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News and Late Edition – item about a Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal hearing – complainant gave evidence – name suppressed – complained that she was identifiable from audio of voice and visual of part of her body – item included complainant’s occupation – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable because job description given together with visuals and audio – name suppression order given by court or tribunal not in itself grounds for privacy complaint – name suppression in this case given to all witnesses to ensure that they could continue to function effectively as Board employees – disclosure of B A’s role as witness in these circumstances highly offensive – upheldOrder Compensation to the complainant of $1500 under s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Celebrity Treasure Island – question posed to contestant concerning “famous lesbian” – complainant alleged use of word in this context was breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and children’s interests FindingsDeclined to determine – section 11(a) Broadcasting Act 1989 – isolated use of word “lesbian” does not raise issue of broadcasting standards – complaint trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Celebrity Treasure Island is a show in which New Zealand celebrities are “castaways” on a tropical island and vie for prizes for their nominated charities. [2] In an episode screened on 8 August 2004 at 7:30 pm, one of the contests was a quiz based around a “fishy” theme....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....