Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

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....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – complainants attended and participated in auction – complainants claimed that they would not be filmed – shown on programme – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 6 – irreconcilable conflict of facts as to particulars of the request not to film – decline to determine Standard 3 Guideline 3a Privacy Principle iii – no intentional intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A couple was shown making the final bid in the auction for a house during an episode of the reality series Location, Location, Location. The bid was unsuccessful as it failed to reach the reserve. The episode was broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 17 July 2002. [2] BQ and CR, the couple making the bid, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reporter went in search of the famous actor Michael Crawford in Kerikeri – locals were informed that he lived in the area – part of Mr Crawford’s gate was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Crawford was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about Mr Crawford – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During an item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 on 15 March 2012, a reporter travelled to the small Northland town of Kerikeri in search of British actor Michael Crawford at his “South Pacific hideaway”. A number of locals were shown footage of Mr Crawford in his various roles and were informed that he lived in the area....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on the activities of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which was said to be part of a “Pay and Pray” movement – profiled an ex-member, X, who claimed that she made substantial donations to the church – included hidden camera footage of church service – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – X was identifiable and item disclosed private facts about her – however, X was a willing participant and there is insufficient evidence to show she withdrew her consent to the broadcast – item did not breach X’s privacy – Bishop and Pastor were identifiable in hidden camera footage but did not have an interest in seclusion in a church service that was open and accessible to the general public –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989High Country Rescue – profiled the attempted rescue of a tramper who died – made various references to the man’s “tramping party” and the “friends of the injured man” and showed brief footage of some of them with their faces blurred – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not “take part” in the programme and was not sufficiently “referred to” for the purposes of the fairness standard – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – footage of the complainant was not broadcast and so no disclosure of information obtained through an intrusion with the complainant’s interest in seclusion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-176:R and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-176 PDF497. 89 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of the complainant looking at the camera and giving the finger. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the complainant’s privacy. The footage of his private property had been filmed more than eight years earlier, and the complainant had made it clear he wanted no involvement in the programme. Despite repeated objections, his image continued to appear in the opening titles of series four of the programme. Upheld: PrivacyOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of a man looking at the camera and giving the finger. The episode was broadcast on 5 December 2013 on TV2....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live reported on a couple who faced bankruptcy after buying a house infested with termites. The item disclosed the names of the vendor, the company and staff responsible for the building report, and the real estate agent. It showed footage of the real estate agent’s office window, which had printed on it the names and phone numbers of the real estate agent and his business partner. A majority of the Authority did not uphold complaints that this breached the agent’s and the business partner’s privacy. The agents’ details were publicly available, the footage of their phone numbers was brief and it was not broadcast for the purpose of encouraging harassment; no causal link was demonstrated between the broadcast and the alleged harassment....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Five Campbell Live items featured the complainant, Margaret Harkema, a former director of the Valley Animal Research Centre, and investigated concerns that she was using TradeMe to rehome beagles that were bred or used for testing. The Authority upheld her complaints that the programmes were unfair, misleading and breached her privacy. Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, PrivacyNot Upheld: Law and OrderOrders: Section 13(1)(d) $2,000 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy; Section 16(1) $12,000 legal costs to the complainantIntroduction[1] Campbell Live carried out an investigation, spanning five separate broadcasts, into matters involving the now closed Valley Animal Research Centre (VARC), and its former director, Margaret Harkema....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Campbell Live focused on a travel agency whose customers alleged that trips they had paid for had not been booked. During the item a brief exchange took place between the reporter and a ‘family friend’ of the owners of the travel agency, the complainant, outside the vacant agency. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached Mr Malakouti’s privacy. The footage was filmed in a public place and the item did not disclose any private facts about him. There was no suggestion Mr Malakouti was associated with the travel agency, so the broadcast of the footage was not highly offensive. Not Upheld: Privacy  Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live focused on a travel agency whose customers alleged that trips they had paid for had not been booked....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of New Zealand’s dairy industry. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the complainant and breached his and his employee’s privacy, and that the item was inaccurate and lacked balance. Neither RZ nor his employee was identifiable during the footage and they were not participants, or referred to, in the item. The item was also sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. Comments in the item that the complainant alleged were inaccurate were clearly opinion and analysis and thus not subject to the accuracy standard, and the item was not otherwise misleading....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed further charges laid against a man accused of a double shooting in South Auckland. During the item, images of the crime scene were shown, including footage of blood on a pavement. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the footage of blood breached the privacy of those involved (ie, the surviving victim and the victims’ relatives or friends), and that the footage would have disturbed young viewers. No individuals were identified during the broadcast, including the surviving victim or either of the victims’ relatives or friends. In addition, the image of blood was brief and was not graphic or explicit, and viewers could reasonably expect that a news broadcast reporting on a double shooting might contain some footage relating to the crime....

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. ]A 1 News item reported on an incident involving All Black Aaron Smith. Two witnesses claimed that while on official All Black business, Mr Smith used a disabled toilet in Christchurch Airport for a ‘sexual encounter’ with a woman who was not his partner. The item briefly showed a photo of Mr Smith and his partner. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached Mr Smith’s partner’s privacy. Information about her identity and her relationship to Mr Smith was publicly known and had already been the subject of widespread media coverage in relation to the incident prior to the broadcast. This was therefore not information over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The 1 News item also disclosed less information about Mr Smith’s partner than other media outlets had already disclosed....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-024 Dated the 6th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MICHAEL LAWS of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...