TVNZ denies breaching law in ‘Frontline’

Press, 5 December 1989, Page 32

TVNZ denies breaching law in ‘Frontline’

Television New Zealland screened a documentary on child sexual abuse aware that the Social Welfare Department was considering legal action over the programme, the District Court heard yesterday. The Crown, on behalf of the department, has brought charges against Television New Zealand alleging breaches of the Children and Young Persons Act in a “Frontline” documentary. The documentary later sparked an internal inquiry in the handling of abuse cases at Ward 24 in Christchurch Hospital. In the District Court yesterday, the Crown alleged TVNZ ran a report of Children and Young Persons Court cases without permission and that it ran details likely to identify children involved. Television New Zealand has pleaded not guilty to eight charges arising from the “Frontline” report, and eight mirror charges against the executive director, Mr Peter Wear. One charge against the corporation was withdrawn.

The charges have been denied by the corporation and Mr Wear. The case wsa heard before Judge Hattaway, who granted suppression, of names of the members of the two families shown in the documentary, after a request by counsel and agreement by counsel for TVNZ.

The Crown prosecutor, Mr David Saunders, said that after preview advertising the screening of the programme the week before, the Social Welfare Department’s solicitor in Christchurch, Miss Margaret Gifford, sought to find out if children were to be identified in the programme.

In his opening address, Mr Saunders said the charges arose from the screening of a documentary on child sexual abuse. The programme was largely based on the story of a Christchurch couple whose child had been admitted to Ward 24 at Christchurch Hospital for treatment relating to the disturbed behaviour which their daughter was exhibiting. The alleged breaches also related to the story of another family whose complaint proceedings

were heard before another • Judge between August, 1988, and January, -1989. As a result of the hospital visit from one of the children shown in the television programme, various interviews took place not only with the child, but with the parents and in due course complainant proceedings were filed in the Children and Young Persons Court. Mr Saunders said the complainant proceedings in one of the cases alleged to have been identified were not brought by ‘the Social Welfare Department, but by the police. At no stage were the parents liable to criminal conviction. Mr Saunders said with all the publicity surrounding the programme many ill-founded comments had been made about the role of the department and public confusion existed as to the nature of the proceedings. In a transcript of a decision by the presiding judge read to the District Court by Mr Saunders, the Judge said he was satisfied that the evidence had shown that the child had been sexually abused by a close family member. But, the complaint case was dismissed because the standard of proof fell short of that required for a criminal conviction. Mr Wear told Miss Gifford he had not seen the programme, but felt it did not contravene the law. In a later conversation, Mr Wear said he had asked legal advisers to scrutinise the programme and assured her that it did not breach section 24 of the act, said Mr Saunders. Mr Wear declined to. give Miss Gifford the name of the corporation’s legal advisers. Miss Gifford also said, she had asked for an opportunity to see an advance transcript or video of the programme but had been assured it would not serve any purpose because it did not contravene the act. During a conversation later in the day, Miss Gifford told Mr Wear the department would take legal action the next day.

On April 13, the corporation made the unscheduled screening of the programme in place of the “Foreign Correspondent” programme. The Crown claimed the

programme amounted to a report of the proceedings. Mr Saunders said the programme showed the complaint summons, and the first names of the family although their surnames were blacked out. He said the programme also showed transcripts from the interviews that took place in ward 24 that formed the basis of evidence in court. Evidence for the Crown’s case was also given by a former Television New Zealand employee, Mrs Marilyn Hudson, the deputy registrar at the Family Court, Mr Christopher Timms, a counsel for the child in one of the Family Court cases, Miss Isobel Mitchell, and a social worker for the Social Welfare Department’s Rangiora office, Mr Peter Haughley. Counsel for TVNZ, Mr John Tizard, said the charges against Mr Wear should be dropped, because he was acting in an employee capacity and not a private capacity. Mr Tizard said he would give submissions on the law at the completion of the evidence. Mr Wear gave evidence that the issue of child sexual abuse had come to the attention of TVNZ by the parents of the children concerned. His evidence was that the core of what went on in the Family Court proceedings was not disclosed. He said he did not believe the average viewer would have had any real knowledge of what happened in the Family Courts by watching the programme. He said legal advice had been sought throughout the making of the programme. He said he had decided to go ahead and show the family after they had given their permission, so that their story could be told in a strong and credible way. He said it was also an opportunity for other points of view to come together in a public forum. The programme had been screened at the unscheduled time, because he had been aware an injunction might be sought. He said he had not been worried by the legal aspects because it had

been seen by the corporation’s legal advisers. But he was concerned that a valuable piece of journalism might never get to air, or get edited in a courtroom.

Mr Wear said he had received a phone call from TVNZ’s head office saying the programme could be shown on April 13 just before 8 p.m. Half an hour later the programme was screened.

Mr Wear said he had advised the head office that it was an honest piece of journalism.

Mr Saunders said the programme was also screened again on Sunday, April 16, as planned, in the face of a statement from the crown office that it was considered that there could be breaches of the Children and Young Person’s Act. “Clearly the corporation and its legal advisers did not agree and that is the matter to be determined in these proceedings.” (Proceeding)