Defamation law in The Bahamas could be liberalised following a House of Lords ruling that has been described as a landmark precedent.
The ruling, which was handed down last Wednesday, could impact journalism in The Bahamas and elsewhere in the Caribbean where there is shared Common Law with The United Kingdom.
Journalists who report on public officials and cannot prove allegations don’t commit libel if their articles are in the public’s interest and are responsible οΎ and fair, the British Upper House has ruled.
“The same defence would be found in The Bahamas” Association President, Wayne Munroe said yesterday, when asked about the significance of the ruling. While conceeding that he had yet to review the entire ruling, Mr Munroe added: “The same defence would be found in The Bahamas.” But he noted that the ruling only affected defamation law in this jurisdiction to the extent that it was not covered in The Bahamas Libel Act.
The British Law Lords handed down the ruling in a case between the Wall Street Journal Europe newspaper and Saudi Arabian businessman Muhammad Abdul Latif Jameel. The ruling upheld an appeal of the newspaper,
which had been found guilty of libel over a 2002 article, which stated that businesses owned by Mr Jameel were being watched by the Saudi government for involvement in funding terrorism.
In handing down the ruling, Lord Hoffman held that, “The first question is whether the subject matter of the article was a matter of public interest. In answering this question, I think that one should consider the article as a whole and not isolate the defamatory statement.”
Lord Hoffman said it was up to the judge to decide if the article was was, in fact, in the public interest, noting that newspapers were not often the best judge of that.”
Added the Law Lord who issued the leading judgment: “If the article as a whole concerned a matter of public interest, the next question is whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable. The fact that the matter was of public interest does not allow the newspaper to drag in damaging allegations, which serve no public interest.
“They must be part of the story. And the more serious the allegation, the more important it is that it should make a real contribution to the public interest element in the article.”
That a judge might have, in hindsight, made a different editorial decision should not destroy the defence, wrote Lord Hoffman. He said that would make the publication of articles in the public interest more risky and discourage investigative reporting.
“If the publication, including defamatory statement, passes the public interest test, the inquiry then shifts to whether the steps taken to gather and publish the information were responsible and fair,” it was ruled.
In reporting on the ruling last Friday, The Jamaica Gleaner in an article under the heading: “Landmark libel precedent from UK,” said, it brought the United Kingdom defamation law “more closely in line with what exists in the United States and is being hailed on both sides of the Atlantic as an important shield to freedom of the press.” The newspaper predicted that the ruling would be highly persuasive on the Jamaican courts.
Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson was contacted last night but declined comment because she had not yet read the ruling.
By RAYMOND KONGWA, Guardian Senior Reporter
