PRIME MINISTER P.J. Patterson said yesterday that despite the removal of the controversial 'muzzle' clauses from the Corruption Prevention Act, the media would still be subject to common law in publishing information from the proposed Corruption Commission.
Responding to a question from Jamaica Labour Party MP Karl Samuda (North-Central St. Andrew) following his statement on corruption in the House of Representatives, Mr. Patterson said while he was introducing no new feature, he didn't want anyone to believe that when the Bill comes into operation without clauses 6(3) and 6(4), "it is free hunting season".
The Prime Minister said there was a specific section in the Parliament (Integrity of Members) Act, passed in 1974, which makes it an offence for any officer, who receives information in accordance with the provision of the Act, to disclose it to an unauthorised person. It also makes it an offence for any person who receives that information to proceed to publish it.
However, he said, as far as he knew, no prosecution has ever arisen by virtue of that provision.
He said when the Government was drafting the Corruption Prevention Act, it sought to have a similar section by virtue of Section 6.
But section six, he explained, had sought though to exclude cases where prosecution was contemplated as a result of a corrupt action and afforded any person disclosing it the defence that such an allegation had been made.
He said the Bill, as drafted, did not seek to prevent the Press from doing what it needed to do as a watchdog for and on behalf of the public.
Explaining why the Government had opted to withdraw Clause six from the Corruption Prevention Bill despite that, he said it was necessary that the Bill should command universal support: "It should not be legislation where anybody who wants to see integrity maintained and upheld in public life should have serious qualms or reservations," he said.
But, Mr. Patterson said in terms of common law and civil remedies, even without putting in any specific provision in the Bill, there were still sanctions: "That you have received information in privileged circumstances and you proceed to disclose that information unlawfully and it can be established that you were in a conspiracy to obtain that information from such persons as ought not to have disclosed it, you then expose yourself at common law, whether in the United Kingdom, or in Jamaica, or in Australia, or in Canada or in New Zealand, to prosecution."
He said that added to the criminal aspect, there was also the wrongful action aspect where personal damage is caused and civil law becomes applicable, including libel.
Mr. Patterson explained that if it is a criminal matter, only the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) could bring criminal action and it would be for the Court to decide whether a criminal offence had been committed.
