George Davis | Privilege for a free-for-all?

There has been a development in Britain over the past few days that, given the nature of our own politics on the rock, should provide cause for concern, if not keen interest. This development involves parliamentary privilege, freedom of speech, non-disclosure agreements, a Labour Party MP, a leading British newspaper and one of Britain's wealthiest men, Sir Phillip Nigel Ross Green.

In summary, Sir Phillip, the chairman of the Arcadia Group, which includes companies such as Topshop, and who boasts a fortune of about US$5 billion, has been in court fighting to prevent the Telegraph newspaper from publishing a story concerning his alleged sexual harassment and racial abuse of his staff.

The claim was originally brought to court by five of his employees, whose identities have been kept secret. It's understood that huge sums were paid by Sir Phillip to the employees who, after getting independent legal advice, signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), barring them from revealing the nature and details of their claim.

The Telegraph got wind of the development and reached out to the employees, intending to publish the fact they were basically silenced by a hush payment and NDAs.

But Sir Phillip's lawyers were swift to go to court, seeking an injunction barring the Telegraph from publishing the story. The matter was heard in camera in the high court, with the judge ruling in favour of the newspaper. The matter then went to the court of appeal where the justices overturned the high court ruling.

 

DUTY

 

Enter Lord Peter Hain, former leader of the House of Commons. Speaking in the House of Lords last Thursday, Lord Hain told his peers that someone intimately involved in the case had reached out to him, providing information that a powerful businessman was continuing a process of sexual harassment, racial abuse and bullying of his staff. He then said it was his duty to inform the Lords that the businessman in question was Sir Phillip Green.

That disclosure has sparked a backlash against the controversial Sir Phillip, with many members of parliament and rights activists calling for him to be stripped of his knighthood.

Indeed, Sir Phillip has been forced to issue two statements in the past few days, declaring his innocence and then apologising for if what he calls banter was interpreted by any staff member as abuse in any form.

But Lord Hain has also come under fire from many in legal circles. Among the strong arguments against Lord Hain is that unlike the court, he has heard no evidence nor arguments and yet he has decided, under parliamentary privilege, that it's necessary for him to make a disclosure that proves that the judiciary got it wrong.

Lord Hain has defended himself, saying he made the disclosure in the name of human rights. But more pressure is being exerted on him after it was revealed that he is a paid adviser to Gordon Dadds LLP, the law firm that represented the Telegraph in the court battle against Sir Phillip. Wow!

 

NAME TO FACE

 

I find this developing story to be of great importance for us here in Jamaica. Section 48, subsection 3 of the Jamaica Constitution says, among other things, that no civil or criminal action may be brought against any parliamentarian for words spoken before parliament or written in any report to the parliament or any related committee.

It means, therefore, that something can be in the courts about someone who is trying to keep those matters private and some parliamentarian can proceed to identify the person involved and perhaps go further and detail the central issues in that court matter. Clearly the public would love to put a name and face to acts of corruption, violent criminality or sexual offences as could be part of court proceedings.

But what if the accused is innocent? And what if the parliamentarian is only making disclosure about a court matter as part of a vendetta against a political rival or enemy? And what exists to ensure the work of the media proceeds unfettered when individuals ask the court to bar them from reporting on a matter of interest to the public?

Must people with cases in court fret over whether rulings can be rendered useless by the unwelcome intervention of a parliamentarian? And what of justice?

Selah.

- George Davis is a broadcast executive producer and talk-show host. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and george.s.davis@hotmail.com.