Dear RNZ Official Information Act Co-ordinator,

I am writing to request information under the Official Information Act 1982 relating to editorial decisions made in connection with RNZ's coverage of the prosecution and sentencing of Greg Hornblow, published across three articles dated 6 November 2025, 9 March 2026, and 2 April 2026.

My concern, which underlies each of the requests below, is that RNZ's language choices across this coverage systematically reframe the rape and sexual exploitation of a 14-year-old child in terms that minimise the nature of the offending. Specific examples include:

Describing the offending as "paid teen for sex" and "hiring underage girl for sexual services" — a 14-year-old child cannot legally or factually consent to sexual activity; what occurred was rape and/or sexual violation under New Zealand law, and describing it as "sex" or a hiring arrangement obscures this;

Describing child sexual abuse material (CSAM) — images and videos of a sexual nature produced by a 14-year-old — as "intimate photos and videos";

Uncritically reproducing the offender's self-description as a "sugar daddy" without editorial qualification;

Framing the offending through the transactional language of the Prostitution Reform Act charge ("commercial sexual services") across headlines and body copy, including in headlines where editorial discretion over framing is greatest and the statutory charge label was not compulsory;

Devoting substantial coverage to the hardship arguments advanced by the offender's counsel, including employment and family impact, without equivalent weight given to the victim's experience beyond a single attributed quote.

I note that RNZ's own reporting reproduces Judge Maxwell's observation that the victim "felt disgusted" and that the offender had "effectively enticed her to prostitute herself" — language the judge used critically — yet the surrounding editorial framing does not reflect that characterisation.

Against this background, I request:

A copy of RNZ's current editorial style guide or guidelines, or the relevant sections thereof, governing the language to be used when reporting on: (a) child sexual abuse; (b) sexual offending against minors; (c) child sexual abuse material; and (d) offences under the Prostitution Reform Act where the victim is a child.

Any internal editorial communications, including emails, messages, or editorial meeting notes, in which the language or framing of these three specific articles was discussed, reviewed, or approved, from 1 October 2025 to the date of this request.

Any guidance, instructions, or policies issued to the reporters or editors responsible for these articles regarding the use of statutory charge language in headlines and article copy.

Any complaints received by RNZ regarding the language or framing of these three articles, and any responses issued.

Any communications between RNZ editorial staff and RNZ's legal team regarding the language choices in these articles.

Any communications between RNZ and the court, Crown, Police, or victim support services regarding the language used in this coverage.

I am happy to receive information in electronic form. If any part of this request is refused, I ask that you specify the grounds under the Act and identify which parts of the request are being refused, so that the remainder may be considered separately.

I note that RNZ's public interest mandate, as set out in the Radio New Zealand Act 1995, includes obligations to act with accuracy, fairness, and good taste. The question of whether editorial language that describes the rape of a 14-year-old as "sex" and CSAM as "intimate photos" is consistent with those obligations is a matter of legitimate public concern.

Yours sincerely,
AC