The case has long and often been made for a substantial overhaul of Jamaica's defamation laws, not only to bring them in line with emerging modern standards, but more critically, as enhancement of the democratic space and people's right to a higher quality of governance.

For, as we have argued in these columns before, freedom of expression, though inherently good, is not merely an end in itself.

It is a crucial foundation of democracy. Its absence undermines the right to hold and exchange ideas and, therefore, circumscribes a fundamental tenet of democracy - a people's right to healthy debate to inform their choice of government. Opaqueness provides opportunity for the corrupt and would-be authoritarian.

Highlighting deficiencies

It is in this context that we commend Prime Minister Bruce Golding for his partial fulfilment of a pre-election promise of a review of laws governing libel and slander in Jamaica. A committee chaired by Justice Hugh Small recently presented its report to the government, which Golding last week tabled in Parliament.

The Small Committee did a good job in highlighting deficiencies in existing legislation and in offering a framework for change, even if, in our view, it did not go far enough in rebalancing the right of the individual - and the press - to scrutinise public officials against their protection from defamation.

Consensus for adoption

Indeed, we would have preferred, assuming that it was constitutionally compatible, for there to be consensus for the adoption of the principle of the Sullivan v New York Times case that substantially raised the bar for public officials to succeed in a claim of defamation in the United States.

They have to prove that not only was the statement defamatory, but that it was published, known to be false and with a reckless regard for the truth. That makes sense on the principle that it is better to err on the fact rather than stifle robust debate on the conduct of those who occupy public space or may control public resources.

In any event, the committee placed on the table useful alternatives for consideration, including changing the burden of proof to those public officials who sue for defamation, thus easing some of the responsibility from the respondent.

The balance between the public official and persons accused of defaming them, is not the only important issue addressed by the Small Committee. Its proposal, for instance, to shorten the time for persons to bring a defamatory action is useful, as are the suggestions for the adoption of defences available, or under consideration, in other jurisdictions, such as Barbados and Ireland.

Dimming of transparency

Defence against defamation sometimes fails because the respondent cannot prove that all the statements complained about are true, even if the statement as a whole hardly injures the plaintiff.

Plaintiffs often saddle defendants with unsustainable legal bills and the possibility of huge awards with matters that are essentially trivial. The upshot is a chilling effect on the press and the dimming of transparency in the conduct of people's business.

The Small Committee has provided a good start. Hopefully, Golding will quickly put the report before a select committee of the legislature so that we can get about the business of reforming the laws.

There will be those who claim that such reforms are in the interest of the press. They are in the interest of democracy.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.