Fiji's Interim Attorney General says court case justified
Updated
Fiji's interim attorney general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum says legal action was taken against the Fiji Times because it was felt that it was warranted.
The Fiji Times newspaper has been fined one hundred thousand Fiji dollars by the High Court for the publication of a letter criticising the judgement in the Qarase versus the State case.
Fiji's interim attorney general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum spoke to Geraldine Coutts
- Listen:
- Windows Media
SAYED-KHAIYUM: Well I wasn't pleased to actually initiate the proceedings in the first place, because I think these sorts of measures should only be taken in extreme measures, in extreme instances and in fact we were rather pushed and this is only why we initiated proceedings. The judgement is actually a very, very comprehensive judgement and I suspect will be reported throughout the Commonwealth it's been delivered by Justice Hickey of Australia. And he talks about the various principles regarding content in the standard of journalistic behaviour. What it demonstrates through the judgement is that the very standard that the Fiji Times in this particular instance had set for itself, in terms of for example, verification of different writers to letters to the editor column. They did not follow this procedure themselves and the fact that it had allowed itself, like not just itself, but numerous other media organisations to essentially drop the standards that is required in terms of reporting. So it is quite a decisive judgement and you probably know by the outcome, the Fiji Times has been fined $100,000 to be paid within 27 days and a further bond of $50,000 should they reoffend in the next 12 months.
The editor has been given a three month sentence, which has been suspended for three years and a good behaviour bond. The publisher who is an Australian. There is no conviction entered against him, but there's also a good behaviour bond of 12 months and the costs are to be met by the Fiji Times.
There are a number of significant findings. Of course the judgement as a matter of interest for you also talked about how journalists who do come to Fiji also seem to drop their standards. And in one particular instance that actually stated in their ruling is that how an Australian journalist tried to come into the chambers of the judge to get comments from him and the judge notes said that can one imagine a journalist even contemplating to attempt a similar scenario in Australia and New Zealand, and he says they should realise that in the Fiji Islands as in Australia, we still respect the rule of law. So it's a very, very comprehensive ruling.
It talks about how the media over here has tried to have trial by media when there is a pending judgement there's been speculation has been allowed and various lawyers and politicians and academics etc. have been allowed to comment even before the ruling comes out as to what the outcome should be and how we now. There is also practice that we observe, that whilst a trial is going on, if it's spread over three or four days, lawyers actually coming out and the media, the tv are trying to get comments as to what the judge should have said or should not have said and what it should be. So I mean these sorts of standards have completely been thrown out the window.
