Search Rapua

SummaryBlack Spots. White Crosses, a documentary programme broadcast on TV3 on 12 November 1998 at 8. 30pm, focussed on some factors which contributed to road fatalities on the Auckland-Waikato Highway. An interview with a truck driver who had been involved in a collision, and footage of the accident scene including some photographs, were shown when examining one accident in which a driver and his baby daughter had been killed. CC and DD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) about the use of these photographs. They maintained that some aspects of the footage and the commentary were untrue, and breached their and their family’s privacy. CC also complained to TV3 Network Services Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was untrue in part, unfair, and intrusive and distressing. TV3 responded that the programme had increased public understanding of road fatalities, and used publicly-available facts....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Darpan – report on first Hindu conference in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, programme information and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – report was not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard relates to an individual – no individual specified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in the item – balance standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Council spokesperson explained what the conference was about – viewers were made aware that the conference had a number of themes – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – report was a fair and accurate reflection of the event – not upheld Standard 7 (programme…...

Complaint Channel Z – broadcast of phone call to elderly woman about family member in lingerie advertisement – invasion of privacy – offensive FindingsContent of broadcast unclear – no tape provided – unable to determine complaint – decline to determine – warning about unsatisfactory complaints procedure This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An announcer on Channel Z telephoned an elderly woman and asked her about the fact that her granddaughter had appeared in a lingerie commercial about ten years previously. This interview was broadcast on Channel Z at around 6. 30pm on 6 May 2000. Rory MacDonald complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the woman’s privacy. He maintained that the announcer’s questions had been provocative and distasteful and said he considered that they would have been highly offensive to the interviewee....

The Authority has not upheld a privacy complaint about an item covering ‘an early morning street brawl’. The complainant was briefly shown in the item speaking to police at the scene of the brawl. The Authority found that while the complainant was identifiable, the item did not disclose any private information over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Not Upheld: Privacy...

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!...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday focused on an initiative by a road safety organisation which creates images of car crash victims as they would appear now. One of the families taking part in this initiative lost their seven-year-old boy, who was killed by drink-driving teenagers 17 years earlier. The incident was briefly recounted, showing footage of the driver of the car and of several passengers. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached the privacy of the young people involved in the crash. The crash was a sufficiently serious and well-known event that the facts about it and the individuals' involvement had not become private again through the passage of time. The story carried high public interest and did not revisit the incident in a manner that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-016–018:Hon Sir Roger Douglas, Hon Richard Prebble and Rt Hon David Lange and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-016, 1991-017, 1991-018 PDF2. 98 MB...

ComplaintOne News – two items – coverage of murder trial – complainant summonsed as juror – shown standing near to accused in the dock – implied supporter of accused – breach of privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – broadcasts did not maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual – current privacy principles not applicable – uphold as breach of s. 4(1)(c) OrderCosts to complainant of $500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The trial in the Whangarei High Court of George Aaron Marson for murder was covered by Television New Zealand Ltd. An item on One News on Monday 28 May 2001 showed Mr Marson pleading not guilty. The same footage was used in an item reporting the jury’s guilty verdict screened on One News on 1 June. On each occasion, DA was shown standing behind the dock, about a metre away from the accused....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert and Jono’s Drive Show – Valentine’s Day “Win a Divorce” promotion – broadcast was sabotaged by participants – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – concept of the promotion was not reflected in the broadcast – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] The Rock radio station ran a promotion called “Win a Divorce” which culminated in a broadcast during Robert and Jono’s Drive Show on the afternoon of 14 February 2012. The hosts rang a second participant on the instructions of the first, her partner, who allegedly wanted a divorce....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of electricians in Target house – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – complainant was identifiable – complainant had interest in seclusion in Target house – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – complainant did not give his informed consent to the broadcast – insufficient public interest in footage to justify the breach of privacy – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, featured hidden camera footage of employees from three different electrical companies who were called into the Target house to install a heated towel rail and change a light fitting. The companies were each given a score out of ten for their employees’ performance....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Hosts and a guest on the Otago student radio station, Radio One, made comments about a well-known Dunedin resident, including that he had been in a psychiatric hospital, and that his parents locked him up as a child because he was slow and an embarrassment to them. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the man’s privacy. The information disclosed had the quality of private information whether or not it was true. It was sensitive in nature and attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy. The broadcaster accepted that the comments were unacceptable and in poor taste, so the Authority did not make any order, but encouraged Radio One to take remedial steps as it saw fit....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-135 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GARY JAMES of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether surprise witness at the retrial had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to not include viewpoints of the defence and David Bain – not upheld – Daryl Young was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – it was an authorial documentary approached from a particular perspective as envisaged by guideline 4b…...

ComplaintOne News – file footage of partly naked meningitis victim – unconscious – privacy FindingsPrivacy principles (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) – facts not highly offensive and objectionable – public interest and consent defences – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary File footage of an unconscious man then suffering from meningococcal meningitis was shown during an item on One News broadcast on TV One between 6. 00 and 7. 00pm on 30 April 2000. Kathleen Hobo complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the footage breached the man’s privacy, as he was filmed naked, except for a disposable nappy. In its response, Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, said that the man’s mother had consented to the filming before the original broadcast, and that it considered the rebroadcast footage was neither voyeuristic nor exploitative....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the decision. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – “Ticking Time Bomb” – reported that Phillip Edwards, who had been charged with the murder of David McNee and convicted of manslaughter, had previously been implicated in an attack on another man – police did not prosecute – other man’s name disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – Privacy Principles iii), v), and vi) – no unjustified invasion of man’s privacy - man’s name disclosed as aspect of current affairs item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A 20/20 item, “Ticking Time Bomb”, revealed that Phillip Edwards, who was arrested for the murder of television celebrity David McNee, had earlier been implicated in an attack on another man....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Sunday, featuring a family who complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) about allegedly inadequate maternity healthcare following the death of their baby, breached the fairness and privacy standards. The Authority found it was unfair to name the complainant, HV, as the consultant obstetrician on the case prior to the HDC completing its investigation or making any findings. Singling out HV in this way had the effect of predetermining an adverse conclusion about their responsibility (whether or not that was the broadcaster’s intention), and the complainant was not informed about the proposed broadcast or given an opportunity to respond or mitigate any reputational impact. On privacy, the Authority found the fact HV was subject to an HDC complaint was information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of 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"....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, and in breach of privacy and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standards 4 (balance) – not upheld Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) – majority uphold Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] RT made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on TV One’s Sunday programme at 7. 30pm on 1 July 2007. It was alleged that the programme breached Standards 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code. [2] The complainant referred the complaint to the Authority under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....