KEY POINTS:
"A bit of inside goss" has proved costly for The Edge radio station.
Broadcasting confidential medical details about a named person has cost CanWest RadioWorks more than $12,000 after the Broadcasting Standards Authority ruled in favour of the complainant.
The authority also criticised the "tasteless and salacious manner" in which the details were revealed.
CanWest was ordered to pay $5000 to the complainant for breach of privacy, a further $2067 to the complainant for costs and $5000 to the Crown for costs.
The offending broadcast was on the afternoon of October 9 last year.
The radio hosts said they had "a bit of inside goss" from an anonymous caller who had previously worked at a medical centre for two weeks.
"The hosts asked, 'Are you breaking patient confidentiality here or something?' to which the caller laughed," the authority summary said.
"One of the hosts then said, 'Probably, but you don't care - you were only there for two weeks'."
The anonymous person said a named person, EF, had visited one of the doctors at the centre, and then the caller disclosed confidential medical details about EF's treatment.
EF lodged a privacy complaint with the authority, saying the broadcaster had deliberately released confidential information in "a clear and flagrant breach" of privacy, the information was highly personal and disclosure was unlawful. The complainant also requested name suppression.
CanWest had no objection to the suppression request and told the authority it considered the disclosure of the nature of the medical advice EF had received was highly offensive and a breach of privacy.
It said it had taken the complaint seriously and had advised the hosts and producers on The Edge that that sort of information could not be made public. It had also apologised to EF.
The authority said it was evident from a recording of the broadcast that the hosts already knew what the caller was going to say and were aware that the information was confidential.
"The hosts displayed a premeditated and flagrant disregard for the complaint's rights."
The authority added that "the tasteless and salacious manner in which the hosts and the caller laughed and joked while discussing the complainant's medical details exacerbated the effect of this serious breach of EF's privacy".
It found there was no public interest - meaning legitimate public concern, as opposed to being of general interest or curiosity to the public - in disclosing the private facts about EF.
- NZPA
