Pacific urged to follow UK and scrap criminal libel laws
Updated
A Pacific regional journalists organisation says a review of the law of criminal libel in the United Kingdom is something which should be replicated in the Pacific region. British laws on criminal libel are very restrictive and don't recognise truth as a defence against claims that someone's reputation has suffered. The House of Lords is debating a bill aimed at repealing laws dating back to 1275 which allow serious libel and sedition charges to be prosecuted in criminal courts.
Presenter: Bruce Hill
Speakers: Lisa Williams-Lahari; Pacific Freedom Forum spokesperson
- Listen:
- Windows Media
WILLIAMS-LAHARI: Because of the fact that a lot of the Pacific nations have taken their constitutional cue from Westminster law, the announcement of the UK revising its laws on defamation is probably a good entry point for our regional leaders to start looking into defamation as it applies across the Pacific as well.
HILL: But what's the problem with the British law on criminal defamation?
WILLIAMS-LAHARI: Well with criminal defamation you can't use truth as a defence, that's the biggest hole in it, that's the biggest loophole for people to get away with all kinds of threats to freedom of expression and the media. So now that that's been done away with we also think that it's time to take stock of how defamation laws are applied across the Pacific. And perhaps to review without taking away the rights of people to sue for libel or slander, those rights will still be there, but it's just also protecting the right of the media to be able to report the truth.
HILL: So in the British legal system you could be a journalist and you could say that this cabinet minister has taken bribes, you could have his bank account details, you could have the cheque stubs, you could prove that he'd taken a bribe but that wouldn't actually matter if he took you to court and say you libeled me?
WILLIAMS-LAHARI: Yes, well under the British system yeah with that criminal defamation law in place you could report the truth and you could still be taken up for criminal defamation. The problem with that is that it is in the public interest, and having to prove what is or is not in the public interest is a very hazy area. It's already an area which is being slapped on Pacific Island media in different countries, most notably in Fiji of late, but yeah, to be able to be clear on the role and the legal entitlements, the rights of the public, and also as well I think for a long time even without this UK law change coming into place, across the region I think a lot of our Pacific people would appreciate knowing just exactly what the defamation laws are and how they can use them to have their rights.
HILL: So have there been examples in the Pacific of governments and officials and politicians using the law of libel to restrict freedom of the press?
WILLIAMS-LAHARI: Say if you asked any Pacific Island journalist in the region who's coming out of the newsroom right now they'd be able to give you an example for sure, so everyone's got a story. When we're talking amongst ourselves on the freedom forum online network, when we're meeting up at the Pacific Island News Association conventions, when we get together at workshops, everyone's got those horror stories of information that's been published in the public interest that they're being taken up on, either legally or through the other means with the phone calls from the officials and the threats and cutting off access to information and refusing to be interviewed. So it's happening at different levels.
HILL: What about the other side of the coin, there have been some examples in the Pacific of radio stations, newspapers and magazines occasionally just making things up?
WILLIAMS-LAHARI: Yes you do get those who abuse that journalistic responsibility and go overboard, but hey there's a public process in place in most of the countries there's the complaints process and there are steps that you can take to have your grievances aired about what you're reading or seeing of hearing. It's just a matter of people in the public just being informed of what their rights are, legally and procedurally. Outside of the law the media is supposed to also be looking after a complaints and grievance process for members of the public to have their say on what they're being fed.
