FEB 07

The Criminal Intentional Libel case brought by the State against GRENADA TODAY newspaper editor George Worme will have to continue before Chief Magistrate Patricia Mark.

This follows a ruling last week Thursday by a five member panel of law lords from the British Privy Council which cleared the way for the continuation of the Preliminary Inquiry into the alleged offenses which Worme allegedly committed following the 1999 general elections.

The charges stemmed from a letter published in the September 17, 1999 issue of the Grenada Today captioned "Doc, stop playing politics" which was critical of Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell who is the Political Leader of the ruling New National Party (NNP).

It insinuated that the Grenadian leader had spent large sums of money to sway voters to his party in the poll in which the NNP won all fifteen seats in disregard to the the laws governing the electoral process.

At the hearing before the Chief Magistrate, defense lawyer, constitutional expert, Dr. Francis Alexis submitted that provisions of the criminal code relating to libel were inconsistent with the Grenada constitution. The matter eventually reached the Privy Council.

In meeting with local reporters last Friday, Dr. Alexis said that the defense was satisfied with the Privy Council's ruling and that they are prepared to deal with the issue should it be continued by the State.

He noted that the Privy Council did not strike down the laws creating the offence of criminal defamatory libel, but gave those laws an interpretation which narrows the scope of the offence, and in effect the appellant (Mr. Worme) gains potential advantages.

"What they the Privy Council did was to subject those laws to fundamental "mutation" or surgical modification, first on a defence that the defamatory matter is true and its publication was beneficial to the public, the onus is on the prosecution to prove falsehood and absence of public benefit", he said.
Dr. Alexis stated that the defense can also invoke the special defence of qualified privilege which obtains where the press has a duty to communicate information and the public has an interest to receive it.

He said that the law-lords also pointed to additional areas of protection for Mr. Worme, including other constitutional issues which may be raised by the defense.

He added that the law lords were clear in stating that if the defense succeeds on the intentional libel charge the prosecution cannot resort to negligent libel.

"Their lordships are indicating that for the defendants to be convicted the crime or misconduct imputed to Dr. Mitchell must related to a public office", he remarked. According to Dr. Alexis, this means not in his office as leader of the NNP campaigning and as such if he was spending whatever it is to promote his party he was not doing so by virtue of a public office.

Dr. Alexis explained that it must be noted that the statement spoke about electioneering activities which took place during the campaign leading up to the general elections.

"In my view the most prudent thing for the prosecution to do at this time is to drop the charges against Mr. Worme, but I cannot tell them what to do and they have a choice. It is their right to pursue the matter if they see it fit", he quipped.

Head of the Worme's legal defense team, Anslem Clouden told reporters that when one interprets the judgement of the Privy Council, it is clear that the prosecution has a burdensome and awesome task on their hands in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that what was said was false.

He said the burden of proof is now the job of the prosecution and it will be interesting to see how the prosecution will go about proving their case in light of the circumstances and the points raised by the law lords.

He reminded reporters that when submissions were put forward by Dr. Alexis the preliminary inquiry and at the High Court, the lead Prosecutor on the matter Jamaican Hugh Wildman described it as frivolous and vexatious.

Clouden said that in paragraph 30 of the judgement the Judges indicated that, "The prosecution does have to do more that prove that the defamatory matter was untrue.... it must also persuade the jury to find that it was not for the public benefit that the matter should be published".

"So ultimately, if the defamatory matter was untrue, the lawfulness of the defendant's publication depends on whether or not the prosecutor can persuade the jury to find that publication was not for the public benefit. The prosecutor thus has two hurdles to surmount if the defendant is to be convicted.

"The second hurdle is admittedly of a somewhat uncertain height since it depends on the view taken by the particular jury trying the case, but it ensures that the decision is taken by the defendant's peers. Whatever the height of the hurdle for the prosecution, it is an additional safeguard for the defendant".