EDITORIAL - Reform the defamation laws

Recent events may cause the prime minister to be less than enamoured with the association and unenthusiastic about following through on the undertaking, but it is well worth remembering that Mr K.D. Knight, the opposition senator, was not the Jamaican legislator who first posited the notion that, perhaps, public officials ought to be held to a higher standard of behaviour than private citizens.

That accolade belongs to the prime minister.

In Opposition, he often stressed the need for those occupying public office to face more accountability than private citizens as part of the effort to change the country's gang-type political culture. It is to Mr Golding's credit that despite his several slips since he has come to office, he continued to declare his support for these ideals and, in some cases, proceeded with the first steps towards implementing these ideas, including the overhaul of Jamaica's archaic defamation laws. He appointed Mr Hugh Small, the Jamaican lawyer and former judge of the Bahamas Supreme Court, to lead a committee to review the island's libel laws.

In arguing the case for more liberal defamation legislation, Mr Golding, among other things, made the point that it wouldn't be right for a public official to abuse his office and escape rigorous scrutiny from the press by hiding behind overly protective libel laws.

We agree.

Unfortunately, the parliamentary committee that reviewed the Small report was far from brave or expansive in its interpretation of the document or in the recommendations it made to the legislature. Moreover, we sense a lack of urgency on the part of the administration to proceed with the even conservative set of reforms that were agreed to, and an absence of enthusiasm on the part of the Opposition to press for change. That is understandable, for the gangs of Gordon House, the parties that have alternated in government for more than half a century, have a common interest to protect and defend.

a higher bar

The recent exception to this attitude, of course, is Mr Knight, who was the standout at the commission of enquiry into the Christopher Coke extradition scandal for his robust cross-examination of government officials, including Prime Minister Golding. In the aftermath of the enquiry, Mr Knight has had a change of heart from when he sat on the committee reviewing the Small report, saying that public officials not be presumed to be "of a good reputation" and should face a higher bar if they sue for defamation.

He has moved closer to the Sullivan principle of the United States, which we commend to all parliamentarians, but which is unlikely to gain significant traction in the short term. There are other reforms which are less controversial that, unfortunately, did not find favour with the committee.

On this World Press Freedom Day, however, we urge Prime Minister Golding to recapture the spirit that led to his establishment of the Small Committee and to drive Parliament to a more robust reform of libel laws. Among the things he should champion as a matter of urgency are:

A cap on libel awards;

• Limiting the trial of defamation cases before judges only;
• Allowing triviality defence in circumstances where a plaintiff suffers no substantial damage;
• In the case of public officials, placing on them direct burden of proof of defamation and damage.
  

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.