A reluctant complaint
October 11th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David FarrarDear Commissioner Broad,
This is a complaint alleging that Television New Zealand Ltd broke S140 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 with their 6 pm One News bulletin on Tuesday 5 October 2010.
A video of the particular item can be found at http://tvnz.co.nz/local-elections-2010/court-appearances-over-alleged-voting-scam-3818752/video
The item showed the arrest of a man in relation to alleged enrolment fraud in Papatoetoe.
At around 50 seconds into the item, the reporter speaks to the camera with a Labour Party billboard in the background, showing photos and names of three candidates for the local elections. Slowly the shot zoomed in until the only two things visible were the reporter and the photo of the candidate on the right. At this stage his billboard photo is almost as large as the reporter. It is not an obscure background image.
The candidate prominently focused on was Daljit Singh, who was one of the two men arrested. At the time of the broadcast his name and identity was subject to an interim suppression order from the Auckland District Court.
The inclusion of the billboard featuring Mr Singh, and the extended close up zoom onto his image was obviously a deliberate decision by TVNZ to indicate or hint that Mr Singh was the person arrested. They did also show some images of other candidates and billboards but they were extremely rapid fire.
In the recent case of Police v Slater, the judgement of Judge Harvey made it clear that it is not necessary to actually name the person with name suppression, to be in breach of an order. Judge Harvey states:
The information can be decoded in the same way that an aggregation of information may lead to the identification of a person by way of a process of elimination – another form of interpreting a particular code or solving a puzzle.
The focusing on his name and photo allowed people to “solve the puzzle” of who had appeared in court. Presumably, this must have been the intention of TVNZ, otherwise they had no need to film their item in front on Mr Singh’s billboard.
I should note that personally I strongly disapproved of the situation where Mr Singh was able to get interim name suppression. I would even go so far as to say that I thought TVNZ provided a public service by implicitly identifying him before the deadline for posting in votes.
But I do not believe one can expect other “publishers” to obey the laws around name suppression, if they are not applied equally.
Therefore I reluctantly file this complaint.
Faithfully,
David Farrar
(complaint was sent by e-mail on Saturday 9 October 20110)
Related posts:
- Will TVNZ be prosecuted for One News tonight?
- TVNZ upholds complaint
- Daljit SIngh
- Two arrests in electoral fraud case
October 11th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Now there’s a cat amongst the pigeons, so to speak… I trust you will keep us up to date with progress reports…
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Bit anal don’t you think?
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Hear hear. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the interim supression (and I don’t think it is an open and shut case) all media should be subject to the same standards, and TVNZ should have to obey the rules as much as anyone else.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:17 am
“Bit anal don’t you think?”
The law yes, so this is one way of dealing with it (parliamentary democracy isn’t necessarily all it’s cracked up to be on its own, is it?)…
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:27 am
I am interested in three aspects of the mechanics of your complaint, David.
1. When did the police commissioner become the person who receives and processes specific complaints? Though sworn, he is surely not a front line officer
2. Why not trot down to the local cop shop, line up in the waiting room with the people on bail, and those returning or seeking lost property, or waiting to lay a complaint, and lodge your written complaint at the front counter as is required for other citizens?
3. Have the police changed their policy of not acting on email complaints?
[DPF:1 - I figured the Commissioner would know who to send it on to
Vote:2 - Because I am in Australia and there is no NZ Police station here.
3 - Possibly not. They could of course act without a complaint. If they insist on me filing the complaint in person at a police station I will happily take a print out of the e-mail to my local station next week when I am back]
October 11th, 2010 at 9:30 am
“(complaint was sent by e-mail on Saturday 9 October 2011)”
I am intrigued – why are you waiting a year to send this, DPF?
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Unfortunate, yet necessary. Regardless of what we think about Whaleoil (and I like his blog a lot), there is a responsibility here to ensure the stupid laws are enforced even-handedly.
It would be a great injustice for Slater to be prosecuted for hinting at suppressed names (Kermadec Crunchywasp for example), but for TVNZ to not also have the law applied to them.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:35 am
It’s good that this has been done, unevenly and unfairly applying law is worse than the issues around name suppression. I didn’t agree with the extent Whale went to draw attention to himself and name suppression practices, but if TVNZ are not subject to the same scrutiny as he was for what seems to be a blatant abuse of suppression and to a much wider audience that would make Whale’s convictions and penalties manifestly unjust.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:37 am
DPF,
Surely that is a pointless mode of protest – your points would have been better served by taking your complaint to your electorate MP – or to the Justice Minister. Using the contacts to have within the National Party to lobby your position.
All you will get out of this is a politely worded response that says nothing and changes nothing. You will get to post that there are ‘double standards’ at play and nothing will happen.
A letter to the editor in the local rag would be more effective (and that is saying something!)
[DPF: I would not pre-judge what the Police will do]
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Are you sure David that a viewer who did not already know who the accused was would be able to decipher this alleged code ? You, and all the readers of your blog would have known the accused identity prior to this broadcast but the average person wouldn’t have.
Slater went out of his way to make a link between his ‘coded’ names and hyper-links and specific cases. Furthermore he ran an interesting names series as part of a deliberate attempt to goad police attention ( and traffic to his website ). He set himself up as a higher authority than the law of this land and got what he deserved.
[DPF: I have no argument with the verdicts in the Slater case. But what TVNZ did was equally wilful. Think about it - why else would they film in front of his billboard except to help people make the link]
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Did you cc the guy that prosecuted Slater?
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:47 am
“Bit anal don’t you think?”
Its called the law wreck. It applies when it does suit us and when it doesn’t. The cops don’t get to crawl up slaters ass with a microscope then gaze hawkishly in the other direction while TVNZ – with a much greater audience and authority – pulls a much more blatant violation.
My only question is why did DPF need to write this letter when the cops should hvae been publicly hanging off TVNZ before the broadcast ended.
One law for all. Its something worth fighting for because we sure as hell do not have it.
For those of you trying to make judgements on the difference between this and Slater why do you not have the ciondifence to let it be tested in the courtroom. The police are not judges of interpretation to the degree you seem to think.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:52 am
TVNZ of course did all a favour by breaching the suppression orders and hinting strong hints as to the missing piece of the puzzle by focusing in on the Corrupt Labour politician (Labour = corruption folks) and the precedents have been set as you note in crown vs whaleoil.
Now a case must follow for clear breach of suppression order. Lets hope the case that follows proves strong links between Labour and corruption that we all know is prevalent and now accepted practice in South Auckland (KFC for Votes anyone)
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:54 am
@George Patton
George, I don’t like Slater, nor do I like supporting him but obviously the citizens of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Jafaville are not THAT stupid. However that matters not.
To suggest that he was “prosecuted for hinting at suppressed names (Kermadec Crunchywasp for example)” is an outright lie.
Slater deliberately challenged the authorities to prosecute him as his form of protest.
They did and he whinged like a girl.
DPF, while I agree that TVNZ pushed the limit I disagree with your filing a complaint simply because I dislike anyone using public funds for political gain.
[DPF: This is not for political gain. This is about equality under the law. I went to some trouble to obey the suppression order, and if TVNZ can flout it with impunity, then why should I bother in future?]
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 9:58 am
So why did TVNZ do it ? Or rather why did their legal team allow them to do it ? The image of the billboard was rather blurred at the conclusion of the zoom. The word Singh was still discernible but perhaps only because I already knew the name.
There were shots of other billboards which I presume TVNZ would argue obscures the identity of the accused. Fascinating.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:05 am
More than one publication … I saw it on the late news, and on their website, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it played on TVNZ in its 8pm bulletin.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:07 am
“Slater deliberately challenged the authorities to prosecute him as his form of protest.”
Oddly I think it was part of his campaign against Simon Power e.g. “The formula is proven now and I can now look forward to next year and potential campaigns against Winston Peters and FIGJAM Simon Power.”
Bloggers ,who are not part of a legitimate media organisation, are an interesting bunch with a range of motivations. Slater is probably the best blogger in New Zealand. The rest are either part timers or voice parts for political parties.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Jesus John I didn’t know you were Slaters PR rep.
The rest probaly have jobs or work for the labour party or greens as shills.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:22 am
DPF – just as well you said you indicated you sent it after the suppression was lifted. In hindsight, you could be seen to have a valid complaint. I’m not so convinced, however, that the link to Singh is as strong as Slater’s indiscretions. Singh’s first name was not revealed by TVNZ, as I guess will be pointed out by them. Most will have no knowledge that a man called Singh was standing in Papatoetoe, and Singh is a pretty popular Indian name – a lot more common than, say, Dickshit. Many would have to google to find his first name. However some would have known that Daljit Singhs computer had earlier been taken by police, and was the strongest suspect if they had read the newspapers – but of course that in itself does not mean suppression has been broken by the subsequent TV item.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Courageous and Mr. Farrar should be congratulated on that aspect alone.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Did the TVNZ broadcast clearly implicate Singh?
Vote:Consider: if they had zoomed in on someone else’s billboard, would THAT person have a legitimate cause for complaint that they had been falsely implicated? Probably yes.
October 11th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Having watched the footage – I don’t think there is much of a case. It is pretty blatant if you had prior knowledge, but I doubt whether anyone else would have picked up on it though. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, and I do believe it should get that chance…
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:40 am
dave, what bullshit. His nane was well known before TV’s efforts and he was listed as a candidte so no prises for figuring out who it was and less difficult than Whales, who I still haven’t figured. Not known to me.
Good for DPF.
Good for theLaw and bad news for Broad particularly as he will be obliged to reply one way or the other. If he doesn’t then we have a measure of the man one way, if he does then we will have a measure of his incorruptability the other way. Nice delema for him.
Maybe he won’t care as he is quitting anyhow.
Vote:DPF can of course lodge the complaint at another venue and so can many others. If Broad doesn’t actthen I suspect that others will.
Nice one.
October 11th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Murray – I abhor his politics but Slater gets blogging in a way that no one else does apart from Bernard Hickey (who has a much more focussed audience). Farrar is also a skilled self-promoter but he is a hobbyist rather than blogging being his vocation.
There are many other excellent writers but their level of production or promotional activities are of amateur status.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:45 am
That would be the having jobs thing John.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Hickey is a full time paid blogger (as is right wing nut job Andrew Bolt) – Slater just needs to figure out how to make money out of it.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Dobber!
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 10:53 am
As are a few of the usual suspects here who are actually paid left wing nut jobs who troll the comments and push their party lines John.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 11:07 am
“Are you sure David that a viewer who did not already know who the accused was would be able to decipher this alleged code ? You, and all the readers of your blog would have known the accused identity prior to this broadcast but the average person wouldn’t have.”
I didn’t know as I missed DPF’s initial post which was then removed in line with the suppression. Once I saw the news coverage, however, I figured it out. As did my flatmate who is as politically informed as the average person.
“who are not part of a legitimate media organisation”
What exactly makes media legitimate?
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Brian – It is traditional to address any formal letter to the head of an organisation or its branches, even if it is intended for a known individual. The head person does not necessarily personally handle each item, a senior mail room person would direct the letter to the appropriate person depending on its subject, tenor and sender. Traditionally too receipt of letters was recorded and all letters were immediately acknowledged then formally replied to, often being drafted by a junior person and being passed to a very senior person for signature. This is generally the case with letters to Ministers, although lapses probably occur depending on pressure on staff.
In the post Rogernomics era, such formal correspondence protocols are generally found to be too expensive to maintain, and letters are often responded to with a phone call or even ingored. However a formal letter still has its place and puts the receipient on notice of the matter eg a formal letter generally preceeds commencement of legal proceedings.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
nark
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
From the Police website, “New Zealand Police present policy is that we do not accept online or email crime reports. Please contact your local police station.”
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
I think the offense is weaker than Whaleoil’s breaches simply because the application for name suppression was refused and what was in effect was a legislative default rather than a Judge’s positive decision that name suppression should be in place.
And contrary to your statement, Mr Farrar, TVNZ did not breach the suppression “with impunity’, they breached it with considerable subtlety.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
@Metcalph
Subtlety? They were taking the piss, laughing in the faces of the legislators and judges.
And DPF’s got this 100% right. That law is there to be laughed at, and needs withdrawn, but in the meantime needs applied evenly. The cops have been very disappointing not acting without a complaint.
And why in late 2010 is it necessary to walk into a cop shop to make a complaint?
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
From the Police website, “New Zealand Police present policy is that we do not accept online or email crime reports. Please contact your local police station.”
This may be just as well, since over at http://www.throng.co.nz/ some discussion, re the DPF complaint, questions whether kiwiblog, offering more blatant clues, was in greater breach of the suppression order than was ONE NEWS.
Vote:As the commentator there asks : “Who is fomenting happy mischief?”
Is it a case of the pot calling the kettle black? – if you are still allowed to say that – either pot, or black.
October 11th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Because that way they can be obstructive if they chose and intimidate you if they chose.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Subtlety?
Yes.
They were taking the piss, laughing in the faces of the legislators and judges.
Something which escapes you.
And DPF’s got this 100% right.
That’s debatable.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Is it a case of the pot calling the kettle black? – if you are still allowed to say that – either pot, or black.
You could try reading the discussion more closely. A refutation of the allegation that DPF breached suppression is actually spelled out there.
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
metcalph : “A refutation of the allegation that DPF breached suppression is actually spelled out there.”
From http://www.throng.co.nz/ –
“But why is DPF making this complaint to the police, regarding ONE’s News at 6pm (Tuesday October 5) when the man’s name was more implicitly given in DPF’s kiwiblog at 5.47pm (Tuesday October 5) under the heading “Previous Post Hidden”?”
Where is this comment inaccurate?
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
DPF posted the name prior to the name suppression order effectively being made, as outlined here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/10/previous_post_hidden.html
As noted, he subsequently hid this post- presumably until the names were released. I went looking for the names at the time- using google cache etc. with no luck. It might be difficult to provide a record that shows the post was hidden- I don’t think wordpress provides a function like this- however it’s probably not much of an issue since I’d say he’d have a fair few of his readers willing to be witnesses that the post was withdrawn.
Funnily enough, DPF later pointed out the breach that TVNZ had made, which is how I found out the names.
Vote: