Adrian Frater, New Editor

Justice Hugh Small speaks during a libel and slander law reform forum held at the Wexford Court Hotel in Montego Bay, St. James on Tuesday. - Photo by Adrian Frater

Western Bureau:

Justice Hugh Small, who heads a committee mandated by government to review and make recommendations to reform Jamaica's libel and slander laws, said he was impressed with the quality of the discussion that unfolded at Tuesday night's final of three public fora, in Montego Bay, St. James.

"I missed the one (forum) in Mandeville but I think the discussion here was of a much higher level than the one I attended in Kingston," said Justice Small. "It is now for us to compile a report and make our submission to Prime Minister Bruce Golding."

The Montego Bay forum, which attracted a wide-cross of the public, inclusive of many prominent persons in public life, started with individual presentations from a three-man panel consisting of Justice Small, veteran journalist Lloyd B. Smith and head of the Cornwall Bar Association, Clayton Morgan, who set the tone for the discussions that followed.

In explaining the mandate of his committee, Justice Small said Prime Minister Golding had asked it to review the current laws with a view of recommending changes that could help promote greater transparency in the stewardship of government as well as guard and promote press freedom.

Generally, the panellists seemed to favour a change in the current libel and slander law, which dates back to the Libel and Slander Act gazetted in 1851 and the Defamation Act of 1963, expressing the view that it discourages press freedom, especially the phobia as regards facing hefty lawsuits running into millions of dollars.

Smith, in his presentation, stressed the need for journalists to be responsible and strive for accuracy. However, he expressed a preference for the United States system, where the burden of proof is on the person, who feels he is wronged, and not on the journalists and media house, as is the case in Jamaica.

Ensure accuracy

However, some members of the public seemed to disagree with Smith, expressing the view that the burden of proof should remain with the journalists/media houses, which they believe should not sacrifice 'expediency for accuracy' and should ensure their stories are accurate before they are published.

In what seemed a ploy to stimulate further discussion, Morgan questioned whether or not anything was wrong with the current libel and slander laws and, if not, whether there was a need to change them.

"These are the issues that we should take into consideration in contemplating changes," he said. "If something is wrong with the present situation, then we certainly need to fix it. However, if the wheel is not broken, why fix it?"

At the end of the discussions there was a general consensus that press freedom was absolutely essential for the preservation of democracy and the promotion of transparency and that, while it was agreed that there should be no law to suppress information the public was entitled to, the media needed to be responsible.

adrian.frater@gleanerjm.com