Libel report sent to Lower House

THE JOINT select Committee of Parliament which considered the report of the Hugh Small Committee on Jamaica's defamation laws has sent its report to Parliament after more than one year of consideration.

Several of the recommendations contained in the Small report have been rejected by the parliamentary committee which stated that the document sent to the House of Representatives represents major compromises.

"What we have done is to provide reasonable additional protection to buttress freedom of expression at the same time as protecting the rights of privacy and the right to reputation which every citizen has," committee member Ronald Thwaites said.

The existing laws governing defamation are decades old, with the Libel and Slander Act gazetted in 1851 and the Defamation Act in 1963.

The Dorothy Lightbourne-chaired committee has rejected the proposal for a cap to be placed on damages. It has also rejected the recommendation for a prescribed set of activities to be considered by a judge in assessing damages.

"There is no need to change the existing practice in respect of the assessment of general damages," the parliamentary committee said.

The Small committee had recommended to Parliament that the award of damages in libel cases should receive special attention. Last November, Solicitor General Douglas Leys, who provided technical expertise for the committee, noted that media managers have expressed serious concerns that a libel award could "wipe out" media entities which were "on the verge of insolvency".

However, in it is report to the House, the parliamentary committee said judges were "reasonable people and were subject to a higher court".

The parliamentary committee also rejected a recommendation that "special jurors" comprising persons with certain background and knowledge could sit on the jury in defamation cases.

It also shot down a suggestion that public officials should find it more difficult to be successful in libel suits. The committee said the existing law was adequate and therefore if a journalist, having gone through a process which was regarded as responsible, accidentally published something that was defamatory, there would be a defence.

Some members of the media industry were in support of the Sullivan principle which would require public officials to prove disregard for the facts as well as malice before they could sue for defamation.

In the meantime, the parliamentary committee has supported the recommendation for the abolition of criminal libel. The committee has also suggested that persons should not be able to bring a libel suit if two years have elapsed after the publication of the material in question. The limitation period currently stands at six years. Small's committee had recommended that the limitation period be one year.

Lightbourne's committee has also supported a recommendation from the Small committee which said the publication of an apology should not be construed as an admission of liability and will not be relevant to the determination of fault.

The report of the Lightbourne committee has been sent to the House for consideration, after which Cabinet would give drafting instructions for the amendments to the country's libel laws.

The committee also agreed with the Small committee's recommendations for provisions to be introduced which would place the award of damages in the jurisdiction of a judge, thereby removing it from the arena of a jury.