GUARDIAN Media Ltd (GML) and one of its journalists have been ordered to pay more than $.3 million to Laventille East/Morvant MP Adrian Leonce for libel stemming from the publication of an article in October 2018.
At a virtual hearing yesterday, Justice Frank Seepersad ordered the media house and journalist Renuka Singh to pay a grand total of $325,000 after the article insinuated Leonce was a “wife beater.”
His wife, Karen-Lee Bethelmy-Leonce, had suffered injuries to her face following an accident at her home in August of that year when she slipped and fell. However, the article cited rumours that Leonce was the one responsible for the injuries.
While the journalist made contact with Leonce via phone prior to the publication of the article and the MP gave an explanation for the injuries, the rumours were nonetheless published.
In his ruling yesterday, Justice Seepersad said it was unfortunate that such information, without any sort of documentary evidence, could be published by a media outlet.
Gossip, unverified and salacious information had no place in the media, he said.
“Sadly and notwithstanding the billions spent on education, this society’s appetite for salacious stories is significant and it is fuelled, unabated, by the media.
“In an era where occurrences and developments reach a wide audience almost instantly via social media platforms, traditional media houses should understand that their continued relevance will depend on their ability to publish verified, reliable and accurate information,” he said.
Outrageous
press conduct
Even though he ruled in Leonce’s favour, the judge also dismissed Bethelmy-Leonce’s claim for breach of confidence and misuse of her private medical information.
The judge said while the court shall “with unwavering resolve, uphold and protect press freedom” at the same time it will not “sanction irresponsible journalism or outrageous press conduct”.
In his ruling, Justice Seepersad said in the article there was the ill-advised, unjustified and reckless inclusion” about rumours of domestic violence carried out by Leonce that was “played into a narrative of ‘another dysfunctional black family’”.
“This portrayal was irresponsible and the court feels compelled to register its dismay and disapproval that such an exemplary family was brought into ridicule,” stated the judge.
He went on to add that media practitioners were entrusted with the professional obligation to reveal information on matters of public interest and for public officials to be held accountable for questionable conduct. At the same time however, not everything the public may have an interest in can satisfy the public-interest aspect of the defence available to the media.
“The public may be interested in issues, situations or occurrences which may be entertaining or salacious but which are devoid of any element of national significance. In this regard, the media have for too long genuflected to the generation of finances by publishing articles that contain puerile, sensational, sensual or personal information which has no real public interest aspect or element,” he said.
No documentary
evidence
The judge further said the duty of media practitioners was to act responsibly, without bias and know “where the line should be drawn”.
“Generally, matters should fall under the rubric of public interest where they relate to the public functions and/or the conduct or contributions of those who form an integral part of the social framework and whose activities or actions benefit or impact upon members of the society,” he said.
Singh, he pointed out, should have carried out further verification of the information she received from sources at the Mt Hope hospital by even making contact with Bethelmy-Leonce.
This was critical, said the judge, given that the journalist had no documentary evidence such as hospital records or police reports to suggest Bethelmy-Leonce was a victim of domestic violence.
“The combination of words clearly conveyed a meaning to the minds of the readers that there was ‘more in the mortar than the pestle’ and that domestic abuse seemed to be behind her injuries.
“If the first claimant had committed an act of domestic violence, it is logical to expect that right-thinking members of a society which values its women would not say that ‘the second claimant didn’t choose her man wisely’ but they would condemn the acts of violence and demand that the perpetrator is held to account,” he said.
While he gave Singh and GML a tongue lashing, Justice Seepersad also warned that politicians were not as untouchable as they seem to believe.
“Constructive or justified criticism, as well as suggestions of impropriety, is often addressed by the politicising of the commentary and the authors.
“This position is seemingly adopted with the objective of distracting and deflecting. This manner of response is becoming the modus operandi of political operatives who pose as social commentators and their reach has even extended to decisions of the court.
“This practice is unacceptable, it undermines the administration of justice, jeopardises the rule of law and has no place in a democratic society,” he said.
Leonce and wife were represented by attorneys Colvin Blaize, Farai Hove Masaisai and Jennifer Tull while Singh and GML were represented by attorneys Marc Campbell and Andre Rudder.
Discussion about this post