Search Rapua

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. ]Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached the couple's privacy as the information was already in the public domain at the time of broadcast. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] Seven Sharp featured a brief segment about a Christchurch couple who had been recorded by members of the public having sex after hours at their workplace. The segment was presented as a humorous 'lessons learned' skit, featuring comments such as, 'apparently you can see through glass', and still photos of the incident were shown....

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(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....

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 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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-039 Decision No: 1998-040 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by C of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary The final episode in the series Weddings reported that a marriage featured in an earlier episode had broken up after two months. It contained footage of the wedding shown in the earlier programme, and included comment from the bride about the reasons for the break-up. The episode was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 14 June 1999. MT, the bridegroom involved, complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast had breached his privacy. He had declined to take part in the follow-up programme, he wrote, and had informed the programme maker that he wanted neither his name used nor his face shown. He said he felt exploited by the use of the wedding photographs on the programme....

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....

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....

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-043 Decision No: 1997-044 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by NE and MH ARCHER (2) of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about a 15-year-old girl who had run away from her home in Auckland – showed the girl in security camera footage in a shop with two young companions – included footage of the house she was found in – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and children’s interestsFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boys not portrayed as being at fault – not unfair – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 21 February 2005 told the story of a 15-year-old Auckland girl, Emma, who had run away from home to a family in Te Awamutu....

Two complaints from the subjects of a Fair Go investigation have not been upheld. The investigation focussed on the sale of a massage product to an elderly man with severe foot pain. The Authority found the privacy of the salesperson was not breached through the brief broadcast of their business card which contained their image and contact details. The Authority found this did not amount to a highly offensive disclosure of private information. The Authority also found the broadcasts did not breach the balance, accuracy and fairness standards, finding that the broadcasts were unlikely to significantly misinform viewers regarding the sale of the product and the product itself. The Authority also found that, while there was public interest in the story, it did not amount to a controversial issue of public importance for the purposes of the balance standard....

Complaints under sections 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on the alleged practice of women offering sex in exchange for taxi rides – showed nightlife footage of central Auckland including shots of a number of young women – reporter interviewed taxi drivers and stated that one taxi driver had allegedly accepted sex in exchange for a taxi ride – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and violence FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Ms Smith and taxi driver were not identifiable – Ms Gardner was identifiable but the item did not disclose any private facts about her – the footage of women was used as visual wallpaper for the story and clearly was not suggesting that the women were associated with the practice reported on, which was reinforced by a clarification broadcast the following night…...

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. ]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 [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....