Search Rapua

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....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of caregivers hired to look after elderly actor – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – caregivers had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – individual caregivers did not provide informed consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of individuals’ privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6c – footage obtained “through misrepresentation or deception” – not required to use deception in the public interest – unfair to broadcast hidden camera footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on 3 July 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Illegal New Zealand – episode looked at the illegal trading of guns in New Zealand – reporter used hidden camera to record footage at a gun show in Auckland – footage included conversation between the undercover reporter and complainant – complainant’s face not pixellated – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues and fairness standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfairly presented complainant in a negative light – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Illegal New Zealand was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Thursday 9 July 2009....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge – “Hug-a-Ginga Day” promotion – listeners encouraged to “hug” people with red hair – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – recording of broadcast unavailable – majority of the Authority declines to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Friday 28 May 2010 was “Hug-a-Ginga Day”, run by The Edge radio station and in particular its breakfast programme, The Edge Morning Madhouse. The hosts encouraged the public to “hug” people with red hair....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – Solid Gold – The Edge – The Rock – messages broadcast over 4 days asking anyone who knew whereabouts of complainant to contact The RadioWorks – improper use of missing person report – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsPrinciple 3, guideline 3a – privacy principle (iii) – disclosure of name because of a company’s unpaid debt – intrusion into seclusion – majority uphold; privacy principle (iv) – no intention to ridicule – no uphold; privacy principle (v) – no public interest in name disclosure – majority uphold Principle 5, guideline 5c – reference to complainant unfair – majority uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story explored the issue of unconscious bias. During the introduction, footage of members of the public walking down the street was shown. Each individual was zoomed in and highlighted with special effects. The Authority upheld a complaint from JW, one of the individuals shown, that she was unfairly ‘showcased’ during the segment. Rather than being a face in the crowd, the edited footage used filming techniques that singled out the complainant and drew her into the issue under discussion without her knowledge or consent. This unduly impacted on her dignity and was unfair. The Authority recognised that bias is a sensitive issue and has the potential to cause hurt and offence. It is also an important social issue....

The Authority has not upheld a direct privacy complaint about an interview on Morning Report following the stabbing of an Auckland dairy worker. The interviewee (the local Neighbourhood Support Coordinator) speculated about who the victim could be and gave information about the living arrangements of the family who operated the dairy. The Authority did not find any breach of the privacy standard in relation to the victim’s family, on the basis the information disclosed did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. It noted in any event that the identity of the victim was officially confirmed soon after, and reporting on the circumstances surrounding the stabbing carried high public interest. Not Upheld: Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-172 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GEORGE W GRAY of Maungaturoto Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-007 Decision No: 1998-008 Decision No: 1998-009 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLAN HILL of Wellington and GLADYS GARDNER of Christchurch 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 1989Coastwatch – included footage of Fisheries officers enforcing blue cod catch restrictions in the Marlborough Sounds – footage shown of officers pulling up to a boat which had been fishing in a banned area and issuing an infringement notice to the skipper for breaching the fishing restrictions – occupants of the boat were shown unpixellated – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – footage was matter-of-fact and not sensationalised – complainant was fined for a relatively serious offence – complainant and his companion treated fairly overall – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – footage taken in a public place – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Coastwatch was broadcast on TV2 on Monday 13 April 2009....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning a Sunday investigation report looking into issues with emergency housing in Rotorua, and a follow-up item on 1 News. The majority of the Sunday broadcast focused on allegations against the largest contracted emergency housing provider in Rotorua, Visions of a Helping Hand (Visions), and its contracted security company Tigers Express Security Ltd – both led by CEO/Director Tiny Deane. Visions complained the broadcast was unbalanced, misleading, and unfair to Visions, Tigers Express Security and Deane. Noting the very high public interest and value in the story overall, the Authority found most of Visions’ concerns with the broadcast could have been addressed had it provided a substantive response to the reporter on the issues raised – who had made numerous attempts over more than a month to obtain comment from Visions and Deane....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that broadcasting an image of Julian Batchelor’s car (sign-written with ‘stop co-governance’ advertising, including Batchelor’s website domain name, and cell phone number) breached Batchelor’s privacy due to the car’s licence plate not being blurred. The Authority found that no private information had been disclosed – noting the car was parked in a publicly visible place, and the Authority has previously found brief footage of licence plates in a broadcast does not amount to an offensive disclosure of private facts, for the purposes of the standard. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Complaint60 Minutes – "Double Lives" – documentary about alleged "double lives" of Fiji Red Cross Director John Scott and New Zealand partner Gregory Scrivener, murdered in Suva in July 2001 – unsubstantiated allegations about drug abuse and sex abuse – breach of standards relating to the maintenance of law and order; the privacy of the individual; balance, fairness and accuracy; the protection of children; and discrimination FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – privacy – individuals deceased – family consented – no uphold Standards G1 and G21 – no evidence of inaccuracies – no uphold G4 – deceased individuals – not applicable – no evidence family dealt with unfairly – no uphold G5 – sub judice rule does not apply to overseas trial – no risk of prejudice because of delay anyway – no disrespect to principles of law – no uphold G6 – majority – balance achieved during period of current interest as story slow in breaking –…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast of Punjabi talkback programme, Dasam Granth Da Sach, in which the hosts identified the complainant and broadcast audio clips of him speaking about various religious topics. While the complainant was clearly identified, the Authority found no private information or material was disclosed during the broadcast over which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The information disclosed during the broadcast was available in the public domain, and in these circumstances, the Authority found that its intervention in upholding the complaint would represent an unreasonable and unjustified limit on the right to freedom of expression....

SummaryThe results of a paternity test were revealed live during the broadcast of You be the Judge on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The child, who was 6 years old, was present in the studio when it was revealed that his mother’s former husband was his father. The Commissioner for Children, Ursula Cheer, John Caldwell and David Rowe, Gillian Davies, Marianne Hardgrave, Mike Doolan on behalf of the Children Young Persons and their Families Agency, Charles and Helen Harrington-Johnson, Bronwyn Hayward on behalf of the Children’s Television Foundation and Aroha Reihana complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast violated the child’s right to privacy....

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....