|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
Radio NZ is contesting
a Broadcasting Standards Authority ruling that it say sorry to convicted
child molester Peter Ellis. Radio NZ's lawyer,
Peter McKnight, said yesterday that an apology was a voluntary expression of
contrition and to order Radio NZ to say sorry to Mr Ellis, when it was not,
amounted to dishonesty. "How can they
apologise to Mr Ellis when they firmly believe they should not be apologising
to him?" he said in the High Court at Wellington. Justice Randerson and
Justice Miller reserved their decision on Radio NZ's appeal. Mr Ellis' lawyer,
Judith Ablett-Kerr, QC, said Radio NZ was like a kid in the playground who
refuses to say sorry. She said it should be
prepared to acknowledge it had been wrong. The order for an
apology, and publication of a summary of the authority's decision in four
major daily newspapers, was the result of a finding that National Radio's
Nine to Noon programme in August 2003 was not fair and balanced. The programme broadcast
an interview in which a man made new allegations against Mr Ellis. As well as the apology
and published summaries, the authority ordered Radio NZ to pay $5300 costs to
Mr Ellis and $5000 costs to the Crown. Radio NZ is not
appealing against the finding that the broadcast lacked fairness and balance,
but it said the authority should not have gone beyond what Mr Ellis asked it
to do, without telling the parties what it was considering. Mr McKnight said Radio
NZ might have regrets and contrition for the findings of lack of balance and
fairness, and would broadcast a statement saying it was wrong, but it
resisted apologising to Mr Ellis. Mr Ellis had said he
was going to sue Radio NZ for defamation but Mrs Ablett-Kerr said he had
since abandoned that plan so he could concentrate on his case to have the
Privy Council hear an appeal against his 1993 convictions for abusing
children at the Christchurch Civic Creche. The authority's order
to apologise could only relate to its findings on Mr Ellis' complaint, and
the authority declined to say whether the broadcast had been accurate, she
said. There could be nothing
wrong with being asked to apologise for breaching standards of fairness and
balance, Mrs Ablett-Kerr said. The authority's lawyer,
Andrew Scott-Howman, said the parties to a complaint did not set the
boundaries of its work. The question was not
whether the authority thought Mr Ellis deserved an apology, but what was
needed to maintain broadcasting standards. |
