MEDIA officials and a parliamentary committee comprising eloquent legal counsel were on Thursday engaged in verbal wrestling for more than an hour.

The battle ensued after the two parties attempted to reach a compromise on whether to accept the Sullivan versus New York Times principle, as it relates to the exposure of corrupt public officials.

The Media Association of Jamaica (MAJ) and the Press Association of Jamaica have submitted that the Sullivan approach be adopted by Jamaican law.

Under the Sullivan principle, damages cannot be awarded to a public official for defamation relating to his official conduct in the absence of proof of malice.

Under Sullivan, the case shifts the burden of proving actual malice to the public official before the publication is deemed to be defamatory.

bold steps required

Lester Spaulding, former managing director of Radio Jamaica Communications Group, who represented the MAJ, told the parliamentary committee reviewing the defamation laws in Jamaica that the state of corruption, injustice and abuse of privilege in society required bold steps to expose and change the culture of protectionism.

"The perpetrators of this insidious malady from which the 'informer must dead' culture is spawned, are the minority criminal elements in the society who wish to subjugate the vulnerable. We implore you not to join them," he urged committee members.

Committee member A.J. Nicholson, a queen's counsel and former attorney general, made it clear that he was not willing to accommodate the application of the Sullivan principle in Jamaica. Nicholson said he was uncomfortable with the principle.

Acknowledging that Sullivan was based on fighting corruption, Nicholson said legislators were in full support of rooting out corruption, however, he insisted that the media and lawmakers should strive for a middle ground.

"I would love for us to be able to come to some agreement," he said. He added: "I don't want you and your colleagues to leave feeling that these people (are) not interested in Sullivan, so that is the end of the matter."

Nicholson asserted that the media should try and carve out a compromise and return to Parliament for further deliberation on the matter.

free hand to defame

K.D. Knight, another queen's counsel, was even more strident than his colleague, contending that he would not entertain the Sullivan principle, as this would amount to giving the media a free hand to defame public officials.

Knight questioned whether the MAJ was supporting the principle that a publisher should be given a "virtual licence to impugn the reputation of a public official and shift the burden on the public official to show that he is of impeccable character. If that is what is to happen, then I need some more persuasion."

Eminent Queen's Counsel, R.N.A. Henriques, who also made a presentation on behalf of the MAJ, sought to defend the Sullivan principle, saying the plaintiff had to prove that the publication was false. He argued that under the defamation laws in Jamaica, if an allegation of corruption were made against a public official, he would not have to prove the falsity. The burden of proof would rest on the media entity.