Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-175 Decision No: 1996-176 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TEMALOTI FAKAOSI (2) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryPolice were hunting an armed robber who had shot a security guard in a shopping centre, according to news reports on 3 News and Nightline broadcast on TV3 on 26 July 1999. Footage accompanying the item showed police Armed Offenders Squad members approaching a house in Auckland. S, C and E complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that their privacy was breached because the footage showed their home. They reported that their home was recognisable to friends and family and that they and their children were upset and distraught at the implication they could be linked to the robbery. TV3 responded that the footage of the property search was carefully edited to ensure that the street and house were not identifiable to the general public, and the occupants were not identified....

The Authority upheld a complaint about an item on Te Ao Māori News concerning a Northland community’s opposition to the alleged conversion of a neighbouring farm track into a roadway. The Authority found the item inaccurately stated the works undertaken on the roadway were ‘unauthorised’ (and other aspects of the item had contributed to this impression). It was not satisfied the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The item also had the potential to mislead by omission, as it did not tell the other side of the story or include countering comment from the farm owners, which may have altered viewers’ understanding of the situation. The Authority also found broadcasting footage filmed by a third-party of the farm owners on their private property amounted to a highly offensive intrusion upon their interest in solitude and seclusion, in breach of the privacy standard....

Complaint3 News – land owners around Lake Ida put up trespass notices and take control of skating on the lake – Lake Ida Winter Sports Association accompanied by film crew breach trespass order – disrespect of law and breach of privacy. FindingsStandard G5 – disrespect for the law not encouraged – no uphold Privacy Principles – do not apply to companies – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A disagreement about the control of ice skating on Lake Ida between the Lake Ida Sports Association and the surrounding landowners was covered in a news item. The item, broadcast on 3 News on 26 July 2001 beginning at 6. 00pm, included footage of a trespass notice....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – talkback – topic – global warming – complainant tried to contribute – described as idiot – named as Brian – call terminated Findings Principle 3 – identity not revealed – no uphold Principle 4 – insufficient information – decline to determine Principle 5 – opportunity to terminate call without rudeness not taken – broadcaster irresponsible and abusive – uphold – no Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Global warning was a topic discussed on talkback on Newstalk ZB, hosted by Leighton Smith, on the morning of 16 July 2001. At about 11. 12am, the complainant telephoned, gave his name as "Jim", and challenged the views advanced by a professor who had been interviewed, and who had disputed the global warming theory....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote…...

ComplaintOne News – item concerning Prime Minister’s announcement not to attend at Waitangi for services – included archival footage of Prime Minister upset at previous Waitangi Day service – tasteless – unfair FindingsStandard 1 – historical significance – contextual relevance – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair to Prime Minister – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 3 February 2003 concerned the Prime Minister’s announcement that she would not attend services at Waitangi on Waitangi Day. The item included archival footage of the Prime Minister crying at a previous Waitangi Day celebration. [2] Mr Penrice complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item should not have included this historical footage of the Prime Minister....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting that 17-month-old girl had suffered head injuries at a Christchurch home – showed street name and number of house – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant did not identify an individual whose privacy was allegedly breached – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 26 October 2006, reported that a 17-month-old girl had been flown to Starship Hospital after she had suffered serious head injuries while visiting a Christchurch home. It said that police were investigating how the injuries had occurred, and whether they were accidental or intentional. The reporter referred to the name of the street where the home was located, and the street sign was shown....

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...

Summary District Court Judge Martin Beattie was acquitted on 1 August 1997 on a number of dishonesty charges after a jury trial. It was a high-profile case. On 27 July 1998, a news item revealed the contents of a High Court ruling made before the trial in which the judge had ruled inadmissible a report prepared by a QC at the request of the Chief District Court Judge in the early stages of the investigation. The item reported that the judgment disclosed the QC’s opinion that Judge Beattie was guilty of fraud. Mr Clayton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the QC’s opinion about the judge’s behaviour was "utterly irrelevant", and the disclosure not only breached broadcasting standards, but also invaded Judge Beattie’s privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Real Crime: The Investigator – programme analysed the conviction of a man for murdering his wife – disclosed the names and showed photographs of the man’s daughters – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – programme did not disclose any private facts – information already in the public realm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Real Crime: The Investigator was broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on 8 July 2009. The investigator, Bryan Bruce, took an in-depth look at the case of a man who was convicted of murdering his wife in 2001. [2] During the programme, the first names of the man’s daughters were disclosed and a photograph of the man and his two daughters was displayed by the investigator on his evidence board....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 43/94 Decision No: 44/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SHIRLEY EARLLY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – live news bulletin reported on Christchurch earthquake – included close-up footage and interviews with victims – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – unedited live news item reporting on extraordinary natural disaster – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – people shown identifiable – victims vulnerable – however, no interference in nature of prying – public interest – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – unscheduled live news programme – warnings – public interest – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not identify section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item showed brief footage of a stolen car, including its number plate – allegedly in breach of privacy standardFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant and her husband were not identifiable through the footage of their car and number plate – no private facts were disclosed about the complainant or her husband that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – item focused on the offender and how his background may have contributed to his offending – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Sunday profiled a young man who was a recidivist car thief and contained interviews with the man and with his family members about his background....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed the difficulties first-home buyers face in attaining a Government HomeStart financial grant. At the end of the item, the reporter discussed the increase in the number of overseas buyers in Auckland. During this segment, footage of three people walking into an open home from the road was shown. At the end of the item, this group and one other individual were shown getting into a car parked in the street, with the number plate clearly visible. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this footage breached the group’s privacy. While the individuals walking to the car were identifiable, none of their personal details were disclosed, and they had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances....