Mrs Visser, the mother of a young man who had been murdered together with a group of other 
persons in 2003, lodged a complaint against e-tv for having screened a rehash of scenes of the murder during its 21:30 slot, in the programme, Third Degree. Some scenes were taken from actual police files, while others were re-enacted. The matter was referred to a Commissioner to adjudicate the complaint. He did not uphold the complaint. Mrs Visser appealed to this Tribunal against the decision.
It was argued on behalf of the complainant that the programme had been sensationalistic and, accordingly, that it went beyond the bounds of what might be regarded as a bona fide documentary. Not much became of the broadcaster’s stated intention of approaching the subject of dealing with trauma. The programme contents constituted sensation for the sake of sensation and shock. The broadcaster argued that the Respondent had been entitled to broadcast the kind of material shown in the programme, and that it had taken the necessary precautions by way of a PG advisory and broadcasting the programme after the watershed.
The Tribunal held:
(1) that the public had a right to be informed by way of a reminder about the events that took place at the venue known as Sizzlers in 2003. The re- enactment of the shooting, and the broadcast of police file photographs of the dead bodies, would probably be regarded by many viewers as offensive. A documentary, by definition, re-creates actual events, without including fictional elements. It is, accordingly, within the rights of a broadcaster to include a re-enactment in a documentary even if it were to be offensive;
(2) that the re-enactment, in the present instance, included an element of sensationalism. However, that this aspect did not exceed the limits of what might legitimately be defined as a documentary;
(3) in so far as a warning is concerned, clauses 19-23 and 32 of the Code protect only children in so far as advisories are concerned. In that sense the PG was, accordingly, a sufficient warning. Otherwise, clause 19 permits material of a more explicit nature to be broadcast after 21:00. The material was not so explicit that it should have been broadcast, as required by clause 23, in a later slot than the 21:30 slot;
(4) that the privacy of the Complainant had not in any manner been invaded. She did not feature in the programme at all. It is, however, understandable that the programme had surely been most disturbing to her. However, this is an instance where it would probably have been a more prudent choice not to have watched the programme. With regard to the majority of viewers, the programme would certainly have been informative. To have excluded the re-enactment and the police material – however shocking these were – would have been tantamount to withholding information from the public, even if it had been presented in a sensational manner. Had the terrible nature of the murders not been conveyed, viewers would not have been in a position to fully grasp the sole survivor’s recovery from the trauma of the attack;
(5) that the reference to the complainant’s deceased son as a “rent-boy” had not been a contravention. The privacy of a person who has passed away is not protected in our law and, in the absence of a contrary provision in clause 38 of the Broadcasting Code, this rule would also apply to this broadcast.
The complaint, and thus the appeal, was not upheld.