Andrews v TVNZ Flashcards
Facts
Couple rescued from car crash. Their rescue was accompanied by a camera crew, who recorded a private conversation between the plaintiff and his wife and uploaded it online.
Was the information ‘private’?
The court does not reach the stage of considering the ‘highly offensive’ test until it has concluded that what has been disclosed was private information.
General Rule
Something which occurs in a public place is unlikely to give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Thoughts about Privacy
Location, Context, Activity, Access v Accessibility.
Method of Intrusion
Although they were in public, moving to be in a hidden place makes it private. Was it voluntary, or involuntary?
Was the publication ‘offensive’?
Mr A accepted that there was nothing in the program which showed him in a bad light/humiliating. Mrs A was unable to identify anything specific in the broadcast which she claimed to be offensive.
Were the plaintiffs ‘identifiable’?
“I am not satisfied that the extent of pixilation was sufficient to prevent Mrs A from being identified by those acquainted with her”.
Plaintiff Culpability
Drink - driving: brought on themselves?
The emergency scene was not selected because it was the site of the commission of a criminal offence.
Legitimate Public Concern
“Had it been necessary, I would have upheld the defendants invocation of the defence of the legitimate public concern. The television series, while providing a certain level of entertainment, nether less has a serious underlying purpose”
