|
Canadian Court Affirms
Media's Right to Publish in the Public Interest
The Canadian media has been granted judicial latitude described as a
major breakthrough for freedom of the press in the country with an
Ontario Court of Appeal judgment which gave the media the freedom to
publish information deemed to be in the public interest.
The three-judge panel in a unanimous decision on 13 November said news
media carrying out responsible journalism in the public interest should
be a defence against libel and slander suits.
The court, in what it calls a "new and distinctive" defence for
journalists reporting on matters of public significance: the "public
interest responsible journalism defence”, said if a news organization
can show it made every attempt to be fair and to confirm that the
contents of a story are true, it has a defence to a defamation lawsuit,
"even if it got some of its facts wrong".
The Court’s decision was based on a test case involving an Ontario
police officer Danno Cusson who had sued the daily "The Ottawa Citizen"
newspaper and three of its reporters for defamation after the newspaper
published a series of stories about his trip to New York in the
aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that suggested he had
acted improperly.
The court held that the traditional approach to the law of defamation,
which favours the protection of a person's reputation over robust debate
about public issues, is out of sync in a country such as Canada that
values freedom of expression.
It said: "Democracy depends upon the free and open debate of public
issues and the freedom to criticize the rich, the powerful and those,
such as police officers, who exercise power and authority in our
society."
"The defence is plainly intended to shift the law of defamation away
from its rigid reputation-protection stance to freer and more open
discussion on matters of public interest and should be interpreted
accordingly," said Judge Robert Sharpe, who wrote the judgment on behalf
of Madam Justice Karen Weiler and Mr. Justice Robert Blair.
Reacting to the judgment, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
said "The decision will decrease the chilling effect of potential libel
suits on reporters and editors. Editors and reporters will now have more
freedom to go after stories of public interest that they were frightened
to touch before."
CJFE believes that this shift, which
puts greater priority on freer and more open discussions in the media,
and backs off from the protections of reputations of those in power,
will benefit all Canadians. The ruling brings the Canadian media in line
with similar approaches followed in most major English-speaking
countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa
and Australia.
Traditional defamation law favours the protection of a person's
reputation over freer and more open debate of public issues.
In Nigeria the best and surest form of defence in a case of defamation
is justification. This means, in simple terms, “that the words
complained of are true in substance and in fact”, and the onus of
proving a plea of justification lies with the defendant.
The other defences to libel and defamation are ‘fair comments’ and
‘qualified privilege’. But these defences must be based on accurate
reporting of the event. |
