LONDON:
THE GLEANER Company Limited is appealing against the damages awarded to Anthony Abrahams after it published defamatory articles about him.
The three articles were published by the Daily Gleaner and its sister tabloid The Star in September 1987.
At the initial trial in 1996 a jury awarded Abrahams damages of J$80.7 million. But the newspaper appealed and the amount was more than halved by the court of appeal in July 2000 to J$35 million.
The newspaper said it published the article from a story which appeared on the Associated Press news wires.
It says the article was printed from a bona fide source and reproduced in other newspapers and magazines, including Time magazine.
It said it did not receive an advice to kill the story, which the wire service said it put out one and a half hours after initially distributing the story.
At the trial in 1996, Mr. Abrahams's lawyers claimed the newspaper was "irresponsible" and that the former minister had been "brought into public scandal, odium and contempt" and that The Gleaner's article had "damaged his reputation and seriously wounded his feelings".
The newspaper has now taken the case to the Privy Council, the highest court of appeal for Commonwealth countries, in London.
A THREAT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
It claims the "truly vast sum" has compromised the "fundamental right to freedom of expression" and threatened the freedom of the press for the future.
It says it is being "punished through the back door" by the amount of damages and claims they are disproportionate to previous defamation awards in Jamaica.
Opening the case yesterday for the newspaper group, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, QC said: "We accept that the jury was entitled to regard the words complained of as a serious defamation, which was injurious to the respondent's reputation and seriously wounding to his feelings.
"The jury were not entitled to award a sum by way of general compensatory damages which was wildly disproportionate and unreasonable. The award made by the jury was of astronomical magnitude.
"The jury's verdict award was disproportionate to the legitimate compensatory aims of the award of damages for libel.
"The award was so excessive that the jury must have erred by including an element of punishment of the appellant."
VAST SUM
Lord Lester went on to question the subsequent amount of damages ruled by the appeal court.
He said: "The Court of Appeal substituted an award of J$35 million - that was a truly vast sum in the context of a relatively poor country like Jamaica.
"The Court of Appeal's substituted award was so excessive because they, like the jury, must have included an element of punishment of the appellants.
"The court of appeal's reduction failed to achieve an award that was proportionate...to compensate for the injury resulting from the libel and to vindicate Mr Abrahams's reputation.
"It was completely out of line with previous awards for defamation and personal injuries in Jamaica."
Lord Lester said the decision went against Section 22 of the Jamaican constitution which upholds freedom of expression.
He added: "If the Court of Appeal's decision were left to stand, it would constitute a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression of the appellants and their readers and it would seriously chill the freedom of political expression of the media and the public in Jamaica and elsewhere in the Commonwealth Caribbean."
The case continues today.
