VZCZCXYZ0016
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKG #0196/01 0391600
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 081559Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY KINGSTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0666
INFO RUEHKG/AMEMBASSY KINGSTON

UNCLAS KINGSTON 000196 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON ETRD ENRG EFIN EINV PREL PINR SOCI TRSY OPIC
IBRD, KCRM, IMF, XL, JM 
SUBJECT: Jamaica's Libel Laws: A Chilling Effect on Crime and 
Corruption Reporting 
 
REF: 09 KINGSTON 121; 08 KINGSTON 648; 08 KINGSTON 328 
 
Jamaica's Libel Laws: A Chilling Effect on Crime and Corruption 
Reporting 
 
 
 
Summary and Analysis 
 
----------------------------- 
 
¶1.  (U) Jamaica's libel laws have a chilling effect on 
investigative reporting by the press and hinder the media's ability 
to bring corruption and criminal activity to light.  A duty to 
inform subjects of media reporting prior to publishing puts the 
subject of a story on notice and provides them with an opportunity 
to seek an injunction to stymie publication.   The risk of costly 
court-awarded damages also discourages media owners from 
aggressively pursuing the types of stories that would bring 
information about corruption and criminal activity to light. 
Libel laws that favor perpetrators may be one of the contributing 
factors to the country's seemingly unfixable corruption and crime 
problems.  In his inaugural speech in September 2007, Prime 
Minister (PM) Bruce Golding promised legislative reform for libel 
laws; however, to date the process has been slow moving.  End 
Summary and Analysis. 
 
 
 
Libel Laws Protect Criminals, Silence Media 
 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Jamaica's libel laws are used by public figures as a sword 
to quiet the voices of dissent and opposition, and by criminals as 
a tool to silence investigative reporting of possible criminal 
activity.  Emboffs spoke with Cliff Hughes, owner of the Nationwide 
News Network who said, "As a journalist, if you haven't been sued 
for libel, then you're not doing your job."  The potentially high 
damages for defamation suits have a chilling effect on freedom of 
expression and the press. In the landmark case of Anthony Abrahams 
v. The Gleaner Company, a jury ordered owners of Jamaica's oldest 
newspaper to pay former Minister of Tourism, Eric Anthony Abrahams, 
J$80.7 million (then-US $2.5 million) in damages for a defamatory 
statement published in the Jamaica Gleaner newspaper.  Although the 
award was later reduced to J$35 million (then-US $1.1 million), the 
award of significant damages encouraged self-censorship among 
journalists and media personnel. "A news organization in this 
country could be brought down by one libel suit," said Desmond 
Richards, President of the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ). "How 
many news organizations could pay out a US$ 1 million award and 
still open the next day? 
 
 
 
Example: Libel Laws Effect on Ponzi Schemes 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶3. (SBU) Members of the financial community have said that fears of 
libel action influenced the lack of media investigation into the 
ponzi scheme operations of the Olint and Cash Plus that rose to 
prominence for a few years before crashing in 2008 (Reftel A, B, 
C).  Even the Financial Services Commission (FSC), whose duty is to 
supervise and regulate the securities industry, did not report 
these clubs to be Ponzi schemes.  Hughes told Emboff,  "If the FSC, 
who is in a position to request documents and gather evidence to 
determine if these clubs were legitimate, did not report them as 
Ponzi schemes, then media organizations were certainly not going to 
take that risk upon themselves." 
 
 
 
Putting The Subject of Investigation On Notice 
 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) Public officials and wrongdoers have since been able to 
use threats of libel suits to prohibit media disclosure of 
information in the public interest and hinder press investigations 
into possible criminal activity.  In addition, the court-created 
"responsible journalism" defense to libel has opened the flood 
gates for numerous pre-emptive lawsuits.  To meet the standard for 
this defense, journalists may be required to contact and seek 
comment from the subject of a defamatory statement, prior to 
 
 
publication. Thus, putting the subject of the investigation on 
notice of the press interest in their activities and therefore 
affording the subject an opportunity to seek an injunction against 
publication. 
 
 
 
Burden of Proof 
 
-------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Under the current Libel and Slander Act, a defendant may 
still be criminally tried and imprisoned for publishing a 
defamatory statement, even if that statement ultimately is proved 
to be true. Jamaica's criminal libel laws were established to 
protect English nobility from criticism.  This offence was used to 
restrict the same freedom of expression now guaranteed by the 
Jamaican Constitution.  In Justice Hugh Small's report to PM 
Golding about changes to Jamaica's libel laws, he notes: "It is 
remarkable that under section 7 of the Libel and Slander Act 1851, 
the truth of the matters published shall not amount to a defense 
unless it was for the public benefit that the matters should be 
published." This paragraph also makes reference to how Marcus 
Garvey and Leonard Howell were imprisoned for criminal libel.  In 
addition, Jamaican libel actions only require that claimants show 
the comments made about them were defamatory in order to bring a 
libel claim. The libel action begins with the assumption that all 
defamatory statements are false, placing the burden of proof on the 
defendant to show that such defamatory statements are true or 
substantially true. Therefore, journalists are forced to 
pre-eminently present documented evidence necessary to establish a 
libel-proof defense prior to publishing stories of public interest. 
 
 
 
 
Modernizing Jamaica's Libel Laws 
 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Media professionals have petitioned Parliament to 
modernize libel laws in order to bring them in line with the 
legislative revisions found in other common law jurisdictions. 
Because of the two countries' historical relationship, Jamaica's 
libel laws mirrors the laws of the United Kingdom.  This approach 
to libel values a claimant's reputation over the defendant's right 
to freedom of speech. In order to modernize Jamaica's libel laws, 
journalists advocate: (1) the elimination of criminal libel as an 
offense; and (2) changing the burden of proof from defendant to 
plaintiff in a libel action. 
 
 
 
Finding a Legislative Solution... 
 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Parliament is currently debating proposed amendments to 
the libel laws.  These amendments were proposed by a 12-person 
committee, commissioned by PM Bruce Golding, to review the laws and 
make recommendations that would facilitate greater transparency in 
government and promote freedom of the expression.  In his 
inauguration speech in September 2007, PM Golding said he was 
committed to ensuring that these laws cannot be used as a firewall 
to protect wrongdoers.  PM Golding has personally endorsed the 
proposed amendments, saying publically: "I believe that those of us 
who offer ourselves for public office, particularly elected office, 
where we ask the people to trust us and entrust in our hands, 
power, must be prepared to expose and subject ourselves to a higher 
standard of transparency than the ordinary citizen, who is just 
going about his business." 
 
 
 
... Is Slow Moving 
 
------------------------ 
 
¶8. (SBU) The committee completed and submitted its report to the PM 
and Parliament on February 29, 2008.  The report recommended 
specific legislative changes necessary to meet the Government of 
Jamaica's objective of modernizing Jamaica's libel laws "so that 
those engaged in corruption can be easily exposed and brought to 
justice."  According to PM Golding, "the committee did their work, 
they submitted their report, we took it to Parliament and it has 
spent a long time before a Parliamentary Committee." 
 
 
Australia As A Model 
 
--------------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Although the committee refrained from recommending a 
standard to be used by courts to award damages in libel cases, 
committee members did recommend that the country adopt legislation 
that would allow a judge instead of a jury to determine the 
appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to plaintiffs.  The 
committee highlighted the Australian Defamation Act as a model for 
Jamaica. In Australia, the role of the jury is to find whether the 
defamatory matter had been published by the defendant, but the 
judge assesses the amount of compensation to be awarded.  The judge 
ensures that there is an "appropriate and rational relationship" 
between the amount of compensation awarded and the harm sustained 
by the plaintiff.  The Australian system also institutes a maximum 
amount of damages for non-economic loss and abolishes awards of 
punitive damages in defamation cases. 
 
 
 
¶10. (SBU) While the committee recommended that criminal libel be 
abolished and called for self-regulation of the media, committee 
members disagreed on the appropriate standards for determining 
libel when public officials sue in relation to statements 
concerning public affairs. The committee came up with three 
approaches: (1) adopt the American standard to allow citizens, not 
acting in actual malice, to freely criticize public officials 
regarding matters of public interest; (2) reject the "actual 
malice" standard but require that a plaintiff prove the falsity of 
a defamatory statement when bringing a libel claim; or (3) leave 
the libel laws as is to encourage qualified people to pursue public 
office. 
 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
-------------- 
 
¶11.  (SBU) Jamaica faces significant crime and corruption 
challenges that hinder economic growth and foreign investment; one 
of the tools to root out these problems is an active free press. 
Current libel laws restrain investigative journalism and tip the 
scales in favor of perpetrators.  Like the multiple anti-crime 
legislative packages that are currently bogged down in Parliament, 
new libel provisions, if adopted, would be important tool to help 
the government better combat crime and corruption.  Unfortunately, 
the political will to ensure legislative reform is passed in a 
timely manner is lacking. 
Parnell