Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – man shown gathering scallops – statement in programme that “there was sufficient there anyway to issue him with a couple of infringement notices” – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – filmed in a public place – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment on Coastwatch broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 14 February 2005 showed a diver approached by Ministry of Fisheries officers while gathering scallops. The fisheries officer told him that he should only have collected 60 scallops, whereas he had 104 scallops on the boat. The fisheries officer explained that this was “not in the area of what we consider to be a serious offence”, and the diver said that he had been trying to do things by the book....

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....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-052:Collins and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-052 PDF521. 77 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of the complainant looking at the camera and giving the finger. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the complainant’s privacy. The footage of his private property had been filmed more than eight years earlier, and the complainant had made it clear he wanted no involvement in the programme. Despite repeated objections, his image continued to appear in the opening titles of series four of the programme. Upheld: PrivacyOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of a man looking at the camera and giving the finger. The episode was broadcast on 5 December 2013 on TV2....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3rd Degree reported on the ‘turf war’ between two business owners in New Zealand’s adult entertainment industry. The item included footage of the complainant working in a strip club, serving drinks and talking to customers. The Authority upheld her complaint that this breached her privacy, as she had not consented to appearing in the programme. Upheld: Privacy Order: Section 13(1)(d) $1,500 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy Introduction [1] An item on 3rd Degree reported on the ‘turf war’ between two business owners in New Zealand’s adult entertainment industry. The item included footage of female employees in their strip clubs dancing, serving drinks and talking to customers. The programme aired on TV3 on 9 April 2014....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

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....

The majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of the programme Renters breached the privacy of the tenants of the properties featured. The majority of the Authority did not find any of the tenants were identifiable. As the privacy standard only applies to identifiable individuals, the standard did not apply. The minority view was that the information disclosed was adequate to enable viewers, beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matters disclosed, to identify one individual and the information had the quality of private information such that the disclosure breached the privacy standard. Not Upheld by Majority: Privacy...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about woman who was soon to have a mastectomy because of breast cancer – item said woman had been told by a doctor, the complainant, almost a year previously that she had nothing to worry about – same advice said to be given six months later – woman referred to National Women’s Hospital on unrelated matter – woman again expressed concern about a breast lump – Hospital arranged mammogram and tumour revealed – reporter’s investigation allegedly involved breach of privacy and was unfair – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy – preparation) – preparation did not involve privacy breach – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness – preparation) – manner assertive but not unfair – not upheld Standard 4 (balance – broadcast) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go dealing with the ‘flushability’ of nappy liners breached the accuracy, fairness, privacy and balance standards. The Authority found the programme was not inaccurate or misleading in suggesting the liners were not ‘flushable’. It found the complainant was not treated unfairly as a result of the broadcast of a recorded ‘cold call’ and the complainant’s views were fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of privacy standards and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Balance...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A repeat broadcast of an episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the surviving driver that the repeat broadcast, without his consent, breached his privacy. The complainant signed a consent form, and the timeline between the accident and the repeat broadcast more than four years later, in the absence of any further objections from him, suggested that he gave his consent freely, and not under duress. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The crash occurred on 4 December 2009, and the episode subject to complaint – a repeat broadcast – screened on 24 May 2014 on TV ONE....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In June, October and November 2016, Sikh radio station Radio Virsa broadcast four programmes in Punjabi on 107FM. The programmes included host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues. The Authority received a complaint that these broadcasts contained threatening and coarse language and themes, and offensive statements were made in relation to a number of named individuals in the Sikh community, including the complainant. The Authority found that aspects of these broadcasts were in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority was particularly concerned that offensive comments were made about named individuals in the local community, which resulted in the individuals’ unfair treatment and, in one instance, a breach of privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-108–110:Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Inc, Armstrong and daughters and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-108–110719. 35 KB...

ComplaintInside New Zealand – debt collection – privacyFindings Privacy – identification – private facts revealed – no public interest – upholdOrderCompensation of $500 to complainant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A documentary about debtors and debt recovery workers was the subject of an Inside New Zealand programme broadcast on TV3 on 7 June 2000 at 8. 30pm. A debt recovery worker was seen outside the home of a couple with a number of children, who were said to have a debt of $1600. M complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy and the privacy of her family was violated by the broadcast, which included footage of family members filmed through a fence, and a recording of the conversation between M and her husband and the debt recovery worker....

ComplaintRadio 531 PI Breakfast Show – interview about organisation of International Laugh Festival – complainant named and criticised as festival producer – breach of privacy – comments unfair and inaccurate – broadcasters acknowledged some comments as unfair – apology promised – action taken insufficient FindingsPrivacy – no private facts disclosed – expression of opinion only – no uphold Principle 5 – comments unfair – uphold Principle 6 – not a news or current affairs programme – no uphold Action taken Written apology tendered to complainant through Authority – sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The International Laugh Festival was discussed on Radio 531 PI on the morning of 6 May 2002. A Pacific Island comedian, who was not included in the televised Gala part of the Festival, was interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Marcus Lush Breakfast Show – host disclosed the street address of the house where the television programme Outrageous Fortune was filmed – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – no “identifiable individual” – right to privacy attached to the individual not to the house – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Marcus Lush Breakfast Show, broadcast on Radio Live on the morning of 11 February 2008, the radio host discussed the lack of famous film and television set locations in New Zealand that people can visit and pay homage to. He told viewers that he had received an email informing him of the street address of the house used as the fictional West family’s residence in the television programme Outrageous Fortune. [2] At approximately 8....

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....