Search Rapua

The Authority upheld aspects of seven complaints under the privacy and fairness standards, regarding broadcasts by RNZ which included material stolen from the Waikato District Health Board and released by hackers on the dark web. The broadcasts were about a child under the care of Oranga Tamariki, who was effectively ‘living’ in a WDHB hospital because Oranga Tamariki was unable to find them a placement. The Authority found the child was identifiable and their privacy was breached on a segment on Morning Report. While there was a legitimate public interest in the story, this did not extend to all the details included in the item. The Authority also found the Morning Report segment breached the privacy of the child’s family but not of the social worker involved. The fairness standard was also breached as the broadcasts were unfair to the child and their family....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under multiple standards, regarding two news items broadcast on Labour Day 2024: one about a protest against a proposed sewerage project and the other about commemoration of New Zealand’s Land Wars. Noting the complaint was not about content in the broadcasts but content the complainant wished to see included, the Authority found it related to editorial discretion and personal preference, which is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.   Declined to Determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all circumstances): Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-177:H and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-177 PDF724. 94 KB...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item featured a woman who claimed to have suffered terrible experiences while in state care in the 1960s – photo shown of the woman as a young child with five other children – allegedly in breach of privacy and accuracy 3 News – item reported on government’s decision to bring forward a review of alleged abuse suffered by people while in state care during the 1960s and 70s – made reference to the 60 Minutes item and the woman who alleged she had been abused – showed the same photo as contained in the 60 Minutes item – allegedly in breach of privacy and accuracy Findings60 Minutes and 3 News Standard 3 (privacy) – children not identifiable beyond close family and friends – did not disclose any private facts – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled…...

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintMotorway Patrol – complainant stopped by police – privacy – limited consent – personal facts revealed FindingsPrivacy – Principle vii – consent to broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A motorist driving without a seatbelt was stopped by a police officer on the southern motorway in Auckland. It was found that there appeared to be an outstanding warrant for her arrest. This incident was broadcast on Motorway Patrol on TV2 on 23 May 2000. Parts of the footage were shown in a promo broadcast on several occasions in the days preceding the broadcast. S, the driver, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy was breached because private facts about her had been revealed without her permission. In fact, she noted, there had been no outstanding warrant....

Complaint Motorway Patrol – complainant convicted of offences arising from accident – incident highly dramatised – complainant’s identity disclosed – breach of privacyFindingsSection 4(1)(c) – Privacy Principles applied:Principle i – no private facts disclosed – no uphold Principle iii – no unnecessary intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Motorway Patrol was broadcast weekly on TV2 at 8. 00pm on Tuesday evenings. Part of the episode on 28 August, and the entire episode on 4 September 2001, described the police investigation into a fatal motorway crash which resulted in the complainant pleading guilty to serious driving offences and being sentenced to imprisonment. [2] Through his solicitor, the complainant complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 34/94 Decision No: 35/94 Dated the 2nd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by JOHN EARNSHAW of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-030 Dated the 26th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary An episode of a reality series entitled Petvet was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 7 October 1999. It followed the day to day activities at a veterinary clinic in Lower Hutt and included a sequence showing the clinic’s dealings with a couple who wished to have their cat put down. L, the cat’s owner, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the sequence breached her right to privacy. She complained that the documentary had portrayed her and her partner as callous owners of animals and they had been subjected to criticism as a result. She also noted that the programme had identified her by name and, in addition, had included a sequence showing the veterinarian dialling their confidential telephone number which, she said, could have led to "menacing phone calls"....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about file sharing software – showed images from a snuff movie three times during short item – woman seen begging not to be filmed with a gun held to her head – gunshot heard on one occasion but with no image – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, fairness, children’s interests and violence standards – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standard 1, spoke to news staff and broadcast on-air apology – complainants dissatisfied with decision and action taken FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law or glamorise the criminal activity shown – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – irrespective of whether the snuff movie was real or fake, no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unable to determine whether woman treated fairly – decline…...

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 law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – complainant victim of rape and attempted murder in the United States – alleged offender arrested after 20 years because of DNA evidence – news item showed photo of complainant at time of offence – breach of privacy – community standards not maintained – item caused unnecessary distress – item involved unnecessary intrusion into grief of the complainant and her family FindingsPrivacy – complainant not identified – no uphold Standard G2 – images not breach of community standards in context Standard G16 – issues better addressed under G17 Standard G17 – intrusion into grief took place – but valid news item and item did not include gratuitous detail – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The complainant, a New Zealand woman, was the victim of a rape and other serious violent offences in the United States....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – report on dispute between Jim Anderton and Mike Moore – item showed an email from the complainant in which her name and email address were visible – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principles 1 and 4 – email address not covered by privacy principle 4 – personal email address could be a private fact for the purposes of privacy principle 1 in some circumstances – in this case disclosure was incidental to the focus of the report – the disclosure was brief and would not be highly offensive to the objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 146/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G CHAMBERS of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary An item on the Holmes programme examined the situation of a woman and her eight year old son who was described as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. Footage of the child, exhibiting what were said to be some behavioural problems of the syndrome, was shown on the programme which was broadcast on TV One on 4 March 1999 commencing at 7. 00 pm. Ms Burnell complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme violated the child’s rights of privacy and confidentiality. He was identified by his first name, his face was visible, and he clearly expressed his total opposition to being filmed for public viewing, she wrote....

SummaryAn item on Holmes examined "Operation Youthcare", a police and community initiative dealing with some problems arising from children and young people frequenting the city centre of Nelson at night. Part of the filming took place in the police station where a number of young people were being held or questioned. It was reported that, in some cases, their parents were summoned to the station. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 June 1999, commencing at 7. 00pm. G complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his and his daughter’s privacy were breached by the filming. Both he and his daughter were identifiable, he wrote. He also complained that the broadcast of the details of a private conversation between his daughter and a police officer breached her privacy....