Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported that a man had drowned trying to save two children – showed footage of ambulance officers performing CPR and then apologising to the man’s family because they could not revive him – showed family grieving next to the body – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – item included prolonged and close-up footage of grieving family members – offensive intrusion into highly vulnerable and distressing moment – privacy of family members breached – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – unclassified news programme aimed at adults – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryConcern about repeat drink/driving offences was dealt with in an item broadcast on both 3 News and Nightline, on TV3 between 6. 00–7. 00pm and 10. 30–11. 00pm respectively on 22 February 1999. The item included footage of the police dealing with drivers who had been drinking, and included a segment showing a woman struggling violently as she was put into a police car. Ms M, the struggling woman, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the item breached her privacy. The incident screened had occurred seven years previously, she wrote. She recalled that she had been struggling at the time as she considered that she had not been treated fairly by the police when they insisted that she undergo a breath test although she had not been driving. Subsequently, she advised, she was convicted of assault but the drink driving charge had been dismissed....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-032 Decision No: 1998-033 Dated the 26th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by RUTH BARTON of Auckland 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 1989Police – twice showed the complainant being arrested and taken to the police station to “detox” after solvent abuse – complainant’s first name was disclosed and his house was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable due to use of his first name, full length shots of his body and clothing, footage of his property and street, recordings of his voice – complainant’s solvent abuse was a private fact – disclosure of complainant’s solvent abuse in the late 1990s would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – public interest did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – breach of complainant’s privacy was also unfair – unfair to re-broadcast footage more than 10 years after filming – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of…...

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....

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"....

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....

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"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM – news item reported on the trial of a man facing drugs charges – named a witness in the trial – allegedly in breached of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – open court hearing with no name suppression – name of witness already in the public domain – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item on More FM, broadcast between 6. 30am and 8am on Friday 25 July 2008, reported on the court trial of Palmerston North man, SC, who was facing charges relating to methamphetamine possession and supply. The presenter introduced the item by stating: Palmerston North man, [SC], is on trial in the High Court on charges of possession and possession to sell methamphetamine....

Summary A dispute between neighbours was put to the audience of You be the Judge for resolution in the episode broadcast on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The item included footage, filmed by the aggrieved neighbour, of two people leaving his neighbour’s home at 4. 31am. He described such visitors to his neighbour in general terms as her "zombie mates. " C, one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that he and his wife considered that the broadcast had invaded their privacy. First, he argued, the complainant should never have filmed them, and secondly, the footage should never have been broadcast. He said they also objected to being described as "zombie mates"....

Summary A prison officer, accused of a sexual relationship with an inmate, was the subject of a 20/20 item entitled "A Pregnant Silence" broadcast on TV3 on 13 September 1998 between 6. 30–7. 30pm. K complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached her privacy because it included footage of her house when the prison officer, who was her flatmate, was filmed leaving her home. She observed that its identity was clear because the house number was clearly shown. She argued that when personal details were given about the officer, it could have been incorrectly inferred that he lived at that address with his family. K sought an assurance that no more footage of her house would be shown as she had no connection with the story....

ComplaintJohn Banks – talkback – "Royal Breakfast Show" – broadcast of complainant’s name and part of complaint – derogatory reference Findings(1) Privacy principle (iv) – identification – name and content of complaint private facts – facts not used to abuse, denigrate or ridicule – no uphold (2) Privacy principle (v) – identification – complainant’s name private information in context – uphold (3) Privacy principles (vi) and (vii) – no public interest in disclosure – making a complaint no consent to privacy breach – no defence No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Radio Pacific talkback host (John Banks) read on-air part of A’s written complaint about the host’s use of the word "Royal" to describe his show. The complainant was named in the broadcast during the morning of 2 February 2000 at approximately 7. 20am....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from two complainants, a Christian organisation and its director, about an episode of Sunday which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. The director, ‘X’, was filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon X’s interest in seclusion and that, on its face, this broadcast breached their privacy. However, the Authority found that the high level of public interest, both in the programme as a whole and in the hidden camera footage, justified the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-111 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ST BEDE'S COLLEGE of Christchurch Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Footage of a man confessing, in a police interview room, to having murdered his daughter was included in a 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV One on 3 October 1999, beginning at 7. 30pm. The man subsequently killed himself. The Hope family, who are related to the man and his daughter, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the broadcast was an invasion of their privacy and had caused "an immense amount of distress and heartache" for the family. Their major concern, they wrote, was how the broadcaster had managed to obtain the tape of the confession when that was the property of the police....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT – host broadcast listener’s email address and said “send him an email” – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle 4 applies to email addresses – personal email address is also a private fact under privacy principle 1 – however host’s disclosure of email would not be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Willie and JT programme, broadcast on Radio Live on the afternoon of 22 October 2010, one of the hosts read out an email from a listener in response to the hosts’ discussion about union action over the film The Hobbit. After reading out the email, which strongly disagreed with the host’s opinion, the host said: . . . That’s from [listener’s full name]....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers. The roofer was interviewed on his doorstep, and explained he had mental health issues. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the man’s privacy because it revealed his mental health status. The roofer willingly discussed his mental health with the reporter, including on camera, as part of his explanation in response to the customers’ claims, so he could not reasonably expect that information would remain private. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers....

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....