Libel c’ttee begins critical work this week
The 12-member committee appointed by Prime Minister Bruce Golding to review Jamaica’s libel and slander laws is scheduled to begin critical work this week that could henceforth set the parameters for press freedom and media responsibility.
The committee will be assisted by Dr Roxanne Watson, assistant professor at the University of South Florida, whose thesis covered comparative libel law. Dr Watson, a Jamaican, will make material available to the committee.
The committee has already decided to seek broad-based support for its work and recommendations by opening up its deliberations to the public. Its report is due next February.
“We are going to make a call for the public’s views and take them into consideration before reporting to the Prime Minister,” committee chairman, Hugh Small, told the Observer.
He stressed that although the majority of the members of the group were lawyers, the libel committee’s role was non-technical and did not involve the drafting of laws.
The committee members represent a number of organisations namely:
. The Media Association of Jamaica (MAJ), which nominated Oliver Clarke and Lester Spaulding, chairmen of the Gleaner company Limited and the RJR Group respectively and Neville James, a businessman and veteran media man to represent the association.
. The Jamaica Bar Association, which nominated attorney John Vassell.
. The Press Association of Jamaica to be represented by Desmond Richards, its president.
. The People’s National Party (PNP) which nominated David Coore QC, a former deputy prime minister.
. The Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights to be represented by attorney David Batts.
. Jamaicans for Justice which nominated Jermaine Spence.
Attorney Patrick Bailey, one of the hosts of HOT 102 FM’s Drive Time Live radio programme; attorney Walter Scott, a veteran advocate in the field and Shirley Miller, Jamaica’s former director of legal reform, comprise the rest of the committee.
According to the terms of reference which Golding approved, they are to recommend changes to the law that will, among other objectives, support principles of press freedom as well as protection against false and damaging publications and establish standards for determining malicious intent and responsibility for due care prior to publication.
Several other issues, including whether or not libel is to retain its status as a crime, will also come up for consideration during the committees’ deliberations.
Small said that Australia and Ireland were among the jurisdictions whose libel laws would be examined by the committee.
“The Irish Parliament has an interesting set of proposals that go even further than the Australians, although not as far as Sullivan,” he said in reference to the landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1964.
The decision which set the standard of actual malice that had to be established before press reports would be regarded as libellous or defamatory, is considered a key decision in support of press freedom as plaintiffs have to prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false, or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
As the law stands in Jamaica, which is led by the common law of England, a prima facie case of libel may be established regardless of the publisher’s motive. Simply put, individuals may raise a case of libel against anyone who publishes statements that: lower them in the estimation of right thinking members of society; or expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule.
The publisher’s motive then becomes relevant to the validity of the defence to the claim.
However, Small was careful to point out that the committee would be outlining all the various views on the direction in which the reformed law should go in the report, as opposed to pushing a single view forward as the preferred view.