Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Apr 26, 2010 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon
At last, the archaic British libel laws have come under scrutiny by the UK Government and there may be changes along the lines that were established a long time ago in the United States. It will be a victory for freedom in all former British colonies when those anachronistic laws are burned in the fires of modernity.
The landmark case that has changed judges’ attitude to libel was the New York Times versus Sullivan. In that episode, the US Supreme Court took the position that the plaintiff must prove the open committal of mischief and that such action must not be confused with fair comment on matters of public interest.
The US Supreme Court found that public officials must understand that their actions are opened to scrutiny and the media has a right to comment in the interest of the public. From thereon, libel suits were hard to win against the media that were in pursuits of stories in the public interest.
Two subsequent cases followed NY Times versus Sullivan. CBS was sued by General Westmoreland of the Vietnam War and General Ariel Sharon of Israel sued TIME. In both cases the rulings were that the media were offering fair comments that were devoid of malice. After that, libel success was hard to come by.
In Guyana, the ancient libel laws cry out for changes. But judges in Guyana are heading in the direction of the American approach whereby fair comment on matters of public concern as a defence is finding favour.
Last week, the publisher of this newspaper advised me that I should pursue stories of corruption in official circles and the paper will accept libel defence if libel is used as a means to shut me up. This writer will not be deterred in examining the conduct of powerful public figures once they have relevance for the well-being of the nation.
I intend to sustain my commentary on the Chief Magistrate, Ms. Robertson and the DPP, Mrs. Hack. They are immensely powerful public sector personnel whose authority needs journalistic scrutiny. A colleague of mine in the media conveyed to me, Magistrate Robertson’s concern on my consistency in criticizing her.
I want the magistrate to know that nothing personal is intended but I have my work to do as an opinion-maker and I intend to do it. Let me say vociferously – bail cannot and should not be used punitively. It is wrong, harsh and utterly unacceptable.
Judges have said that to me. I repeat; bail must not be punitive. Magistrates are denying accused bail or setting bail so high that it is ridiculous and they look ridiculous in the process. Magistrate Nagamootoo assigned $4M to a fraud accused.
I come now to the DPP. Before I discuss the ruling of two full court judges in relation to Mrs. Hack, let me say in clear language that I accept the assessment of attorney, Gino Persaud that the application of Arif Bulkan to be the DPP was not treated in a transparent way. This is not a comment on Mrs. Hack. It is this columnist’s belief that Mrs. Persaud’s description of the journey of Bulkan’s application needs media investigation. Please see my last Friday article on this issue.
The Full Court has ruled that the DPP must explain her decision to charge a police dog handler with conspiracy to export cocaine. I am not going to comment on the case; it is sub judice. What I will do is to read what attorney Nigel Hughes put in his affidavit and reprinted in the April 24 issue of the Stabroek News.
The dog handler had cause in October last year to have an outgoing suitcase of the DPP sniffed. On her return to Guyana, she requested his superiors to have him dismissed from the Police Force. Her request was turned down. Months after, in 2010, the DPP’s advice to the police was that the dog handler be charged for drug export in another incident.
My interest in this story is two fold. One is to ask the DPP by way of this column if she did in fact make a submission for the dismissal of the dog handler because his animal sniffed her suitcase. I would urge her to clear the air on that.
Secondly, to follow the ruling of the Full Court that Mrs. Hack offer a defence as to why the conspiracy charge against the gentleman should not be dismissed because of malice shown towards him by the DPP. Many persons have requested to management of KN that this writer be removed, one of which is a presidential hopeful for the PPP.
Where is the BETTER MANAGEMENT/RENEGOTIATION OF THE OIL CONTRACTS you promised Jagdeo?
Apr 19, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies Women’s captain Hayley Matthews delivered a stellar all-round performance to lead her team to a commanding 113-run victory over Pakistan Women in the first One Day...Kaieteur News – For years, the disciples of Bharrat Jagdeo have woven a narrative of economic success during his tenure... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]