Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-007 Dated the 13th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J and J McDONAGH of Masterton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary"Boy racers" were encouraged by radio station 91 ZM on 14 October to turn up at a named City Councillor’s home address and to play their car stereos loudly to protest about the Councillor’s stand on noise control in Palmerston North. Ross Warren complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) that the broadcast had disclosed the Councillor’s address and had encouraged people to harass him. In a brief response, the station argued that it had been reasonable to disclose the Councillor’s address to enable a protesting group to make a legitimate point against a crusade by a local politician. Furthermore, it noted, the station had acted responsibly by dealing with complaints received and the protest had been cancelled. The Councillor had accepted the station’s apology and had agreed to meet with drivers at a later time, it wrote. It recommended that the complaint not be upheld....

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....

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....

ComplaintMotorway Patrol and promo – incident involving the complainants’ vehicle – complainants identifiable – breach of privacy – unfair – encouraged discrimination FindingsStandards 3 – privacy – no uphold Standard 6, Guideline 6b – not unfair to inadvertent participants who do not consent as events of public interest occurred in public place – no uphold, Guideline 6f – humiliation self-inflicted – no uphold, Guideline 6g – neither discrimination or denigration encouraged – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The loss of a trampoline off the roof of a vehicle as it drove across the Auckland Harbour Bridge was the incident dealt with in a promo for, and in the first segment of, Motorway Patrol broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 11 April 2002. Motorway Patrol is a reality series which records the work of police patrols on the Auckland motorways....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The introduction to a Neighbours at War story showed brief footage of a man, GR, on a street outside a bar. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from GR’s son that the broadcast breached GR’s privacy. The footage was very brief, was taken in a public place and would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] The introduction to a Neighbours at War story showed brief footage of a man (GR) on a street outside a bar. The man lifted up his t-shirt and appeared to be showing off for the camera. [2] NR, GR’s son, complained that the broadcast breached his father’s privacy, in particular because the filming had taken place a number of years before....

The Authority has declined to determine a direct privacy complaint about the broadcast of information concerning the circumstances of a murder victim’s death. The privacy standard only apples to living individuals, and on this basis did not apply. The Authority reiterated the need for sensitivity and care to be taken in reporting of this kind. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all the circumstances): Privacy...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-008:Earlly and Radio Pacific Ltd - 1991-008 PDF578. 13 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – programme about work of New Zealand police – filmed execution of search warrant at complainant’s property – programme included footage of street, driveway and house, the complainant and other occupants – stated complainant was subsequently convicted for possession of cannabis and fined – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – MA had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – MA did not provide consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of privacy – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – sensitive information about two women found on second-hand computer hard drive – women able to be identified – breach of women’s privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – Complaints of FL, Mr Elliott and Mr Herrmann – upheld; Ms MacDonald’s complaint – one aspect upheld by broadcaster; one aspect subsumed under Standard G4 Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $5,000 compensation to each of the women whose privacy was breached(3) $2,500 costs to the Crown Cross-reference: 2002-071–072 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 May 2001 reported on sensitive information about two women which had been found on a second-hand computer hard drive. Excerpts from the interviews with the two women were included in the broadcast. [2] FL, one of the women concerned, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge Morning Madhouse – host broadcast phone calls recorded at 3. 30am Australian time to Australian residents with horse racing-related surnames to ask for betting tips for the Melbourne Cup – allegedly in breach of privacy and good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – childish prank intended to be humorous – did not threaten standards of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – people phoned were not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Edge Morning Madhouse, broadcast on The Edge on the morning of Tuesday 3 November, one of the hosts noted that the Melbourne Cup was “the race that stops the nation”, but questioned whether it might be “the race that wakes the nation”....

SummaryIn the context of a discussion about driving habits on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 14 January 1999, the show’s host described how that morning he was passed at speed by a car which then crossed all three lanes to exit from the motorway. He identified the car by its personalised license plate, saying it was lucky there was not much traffic on the road as that sort of driving contributed to disaster on the roads. R, owner of the car, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast was abusive and an invasion of his privacy. He denied that he had been driving dangerously, and pointed out that the alleged incident occurred at about 6. 15am when no other vehicles were in sight....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 29/94 Decision No: 30/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR PAUL SMEDLEY 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: 53/95 Dated the 22nd day of June 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-005 Decision No: 1998-006 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989RadioWorks news item broadcast on More FM, Radio Live and Radio Pacific – complainants had been convicted of failing to move stock ahead of flooding – news item reported that Federated Farmers would fund appeal – SPCA said appeal condoned negligence – one named farmer reported as saying appeal should not be supported by Federated Farmers as flooding was not unusual and, on the occasion resulting in the conviction, neighbours had offered to move cattle – allegedly lacked balance, inaccurate, unfair and breached privacyFindingsPrinciple 2 (law and order) – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – complaint dealt with under Principle 5Principle 5 (fairness) – no unfairness in broadcaster’s dealings with the complainants – no unfairness with comments advanced – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – complaint dealt with under Principle 5Principle…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Edge’s Smash! 20 countdown show, a caller successfully answered a series of questions based on the songs in the countdown and won a prize. While taking the caller’s personal details, the announcer left the phone channel in ‘on-air’ mode and inadvertently broadcast the caller’s full name, address, school, date of birth and mobile number. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached the caller’s privacy. The caller was clearly identifiable and disclosed a high level of personal detail on air, over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Authority acknowledged the caller’s disclosure was the result of an unfortunate technical error on the announcer’s part, and that the broadcaster took immediate actions to respond to the breach. The Authority did not make any order in these circumstances. Upheld: PrivacyNo OrderIntroduction[1] During The Edge’s Smash!...