The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the commission) has ruled that it will not scrutinise the fairness of the award in the Anthony Abrahams v The Gleaner Company and Dudley Stokes case (the Abrahams case), choosing rather, to defer to the rulings of the local courts on the issue of quantum of damages.

In 2004, Dr Dudley Stokes, former editor-in-chief of The Gleaner Company, on behalf of the media house, had presented a petition against the State of Jamaica to the commission. It was argued in the petition filed that the decision in the Abrahams case was based on the undeveloped state of domestic law in the country which made it possible for awards to be made which threatened the continued existence of media houses and, by extension, the most popular channel of information to the people of Jamaica. Such a ruling, it was argued, had implications, not only for The Gleaner Company, but for the right of the Jamaican people to freedom of expression and to the receipt of information.

In an 18-page ruling, the commission declined the invitation to look at the impact of the award on the right to freedom of expression in Jamaica and, by extension, the legal framework which facilitated such an award. The commission chose rather to defer to the local court's rulings in relation to the quantum of the award. The commission stated that it tended to defer to domestic courts on the issue of the appropriateness of an award of damages as local courts were in the best position to determine the numerous factors involved in arriving at the appropriateness of an award.

Amend local laws

Commenting on the ruling of the commission, managing director and chairman of The Gleaner Company, Oliver F. Clarke, stated that while he respected the position of the commission, the judgment emphasised the urgent need to amend the local laws relating to defamation as both the Privy Council and the commission had chosen not to review the fairness of the quantum awarded by the local courts in the Abrahams case. Clarke pointed out that while the Privy Council and the commission were guided by the local courts as to the appropriateness of the quantum of the award in the Abrahams case, local courts were guided on the issue by ancient common law principles. Clarke stated that unless Parliament took the initiative of amending the outdated libel laws of Jamaica, it was not inconceivable that awards capable of wiping out several media houses at the same time, could continue to be made and not be subjected to review outside of the country. "Change to the libel laws must, therefore, first emanate from within our borders and not from overseas," he concluded.

President of the Press Association of Jamaica, Desmond Richards, was similarly of the view that the commission's ruling underscored the need to modernise the libel laws of Jamaican. Richards stated that his organisation was supportive of the American model as illustrated in the NY Times v Sullivan case which enshrined the right of the citizens of the United States of America to freely criticise and discuss public officials, absent malice, without the constant worry of lawsuits hanging over their heads.

Managing Editor of The Gleaner Company Limited, Jenni Campbell, said that while disappointing, The Gleaner Co and Dr Stokes had no choice but to accept the position of the commission. She reiterated the sentiment of the others that the judgment underscored the need for Jamaica, a sovereign nation, to amend its own libel laws which date back to the 19th century.