EDITORIAL: Seeing the light on defamation

However they may have got there, what is more important are the positions to which opposition senators K.D. Knight and Norman Grant have now arrived. Indeed, we commend their emerging views on defamation reform to all members of the legislature, in both Houses, on either side of the aisle.

As a member of a parliamentary group that reviewed the Small Committee's report on Jamaica's libel laws, Mr Knight initially supported the group's conservative recommendations for the overhaul of the legislation. They did concede a few bones to reformers, but on the fundamental issues, they, by and large, held in favour of the status quo.

For instance, they were against America's Sullivan principle, which would make it difficult - even if untrue statements were published - for public officials to succeed in defamation actions, in the absence of proof of malice on the part of defendants. The parliamentary committee proposed, essentially, that it was the defendant in a defamation action who must prove his innocence, rather than the plaintiff proving not only that a statement was defamatory, but had caused damage.

Nor did they agree to caps on defamation awards, the empanelling of special juries on libel cases, or for defendants to plead triviality in circumstances where a defamatory statement was unlikely to damage a person's reputation.

Second thoughts

Last week in the Senate, at which the majority approved the committee's report, as was the case in the House of Representatives, Mr Knight indicated that he was having second thoughts about his own position and the worth of the committee's stand.

"... I am having a difficulty in recent days in terms of presumption of a good reputation for public officials," Mr Knight said. "Our public officials have let us down, and I don't think that this society can afford the legacy of according to public officials this presumption of a good reputation."

Indeed, he argued, it would probably make sense to hold public officials "to higher standards" of behaviour than private individuals.

Mr Knight's critics see his current position as an attempt to extend whatever partisan advantage the Opposition People's National Party (PNP) may have gained from the interrogation of government ministers and other officials at the commission of enquiry into the Christopher Coke extradition scandal. Even if that is true, it would matter little, for defamation reform along the lines that Mr Knight now appears to favour would not lapse with this administration, but would impact a PNP administration, should that party come to office.

In any event, more liberal defamation laws that limit the right of action of public officials make sense. Public officials have power, control of vast amounts of state resources, and influence over the lives of citizens. They ought not, in the circumstance, to be surprised at scrutiny of their actions, and should not expect the same level of privacy as the private individual, even if, occasionally, this leads to errors.

It is odd that legislators would want to protect themselves from defamation by citizens who may be attempting to determine whether such officials are behaving in the public interest, while retaining absolute privilege for their own remarks in the legislature. In this regard, Mr Grant's suggestion about abolition of this right is sensible. Responsible behaviour, as Senator Grant said, can't just be for the press and private citizens.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.