Attorney-General v Antigua Times Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 1975 |
| Date | 19 May 1975 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Antigua - Constitution - Freedom of expression - Law requiring publisher of newspaper to obtain licence and pay annual licence fee - Law requiring publisher of newspaper to deposit money to satisfy any judgment for libel - Whether statutes contrary to Constitution and ultra vires - Action for declaration brought by company - Whether company “person” under Constitution -
The respondent company was publishing a bi-weekly newspaper 15 days before the
The respondent applied to the High Court under section 15 (1) of the ConstitutionF3 claiming declarations that section 1B of the
On appeal by the appellants to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, (1) that there was nothing in the context of the Constitution to exclude artificial persons in so far as they were capable of enjoying the fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution; that “any person” in section 15 included a body corporate and, accordingly, the respondent was entitled to apply to the High Court for redress under the section and the appellants' preliminary objection failed (post, pp. 236B–E, 240A).
(2) That it was to be presumed unless the contrary was proved that the licence fee imposed by section 1B of the Newspapers Registration (Amendment) Act 1971 was imposed as a means of raising revenue for the purposes set out in section 10 of the Constitution; that, since that presumption had not been rebutted and the licence fee was not excessive or of such a character as to lead to the conclusion that section 1B had not been enacted to raise revenue but for some other purpose, the imposition of the fee was not contrary to the Constitution (post, p. 243A–G).
Quaere. Whether the requirement in section 1B to obtain a licence from the Secretary to the Cabinet contravened the Constitution (post, p. 241E–F).
But (3) Allowing the appeal, that section 3 (2) of the Act had been enacted for the protection of the reputation of other persons within the meaning of section 10 (2) (a) (ii) of the Constitution and was to ensure that the individual's right of action for libel was not a mere right without the prospect of compensation suffered by him for libellous statements published in the newspaper; that the legislature in increasing the amount required by the Ordinance of 1909 must be presumed to have fixed an amount reasonably required and, since that presumption had not been rebutted, the subsection was not to be construed as contravening the Constitution (post, pp. 244H–245C).
Per curiam. “May” in the proviso to section 3 (2) of the Newspaper Surety Ordinance (Amendment) Act 1971 was mandatory and the Minister, if satisfied with the sufficiency of the security offered, had to waive the requirement that the newspaper must deposit $10,000 with the Accountant General (post, p. 244C–D).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. v. Howe (
Collymore v. Attorney-General (
Camacho and Sons Ltd v. Collector of Customs (
Grosjean v. American Press Co. Inc. (
Leske v. S. A. Real Estate Investment Co. Ltd. (
Murdock v. Pennsylvania (City of Jeannette) (
National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Kentiles Ltd. [
Olivier v. Buttigieg [
Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Glander (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Attorney-General v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (
Bahamas International Trust Co. Ltd. v. Threadgold [
Bazie v. Attorney-General (
Covington v. Sandford (
Francis v. Chief of Police (
Gopalan v. State of Madras [
Great Northern Railway Co. v. Great Central Railway Co. (
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organisation (
Law Society v. United Service Bureau Ltd. [
Northwestern Life Insurance Co. v. Riggs (
Pharmaceutical Society v. London and Provincial Supply Association Ltd. (
Shah Vershi Devshi & Co. Ltd. v. Transport Licensing Board [
Smyth v. Ames (
Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v. Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association (
Western Turf Association v. Greenberg (
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (
Wills v. Tozer (
APPEAL (No. 9 of 1974) from a judgment (June 13, 1973) of the Court of Appeal of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court (Antigua) (Lewis C.J. (ag.) and St. Bernard J.A.; Peterkin J.A. (ag.) dissenting), dismissing an appeal by the appellants, the Attorney-General and the Minister of Home Affairs. Antigua. against a preliminary ruling and judgment of the High Court of Antigua (Louisy J.) whereby the respondent, Antigua Times Ltd., was granted declarations that the Newspapers Registration (Amendment) Act 1971, (No. 8 of 1971) and the Newspaper Surety Ordinance (Amendment) Act 1971, (No. 9 of 1971) were repugnant to section 10 (1) of the
Sir Lionel Luckhoo Q.C., Harvey Da Costa Q.C. and Julian Priest (all of the Antigua Bar) for the appellants.
J. G. Le Quesne Q.C. and George Newman; Rowan Henry Q.C. and Cosmos Phillips Q.C. (both of the Antigua Bar) for the respondent.
May 19. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD FRASER OF TULLYBELTON.
The respondent is a company registered in Antigua. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the appellants in both the courts below, and repeated before this Board, that the respondent was not entitled to initiate these proceedings under section 15 of the Constitution of Antigua, on the ground that it was not a “person” within the meaning of that section. The objection was repelled by Louisy J. in the High Court of Antigua. and his decision on this point was upheld by a majority of the Court of Appeal of the West Indies Associated States. Peterkin J.A. dissented on this point.
The respondent was the publisher of a bi-weekly newspaper called the “Antigua Times.” Publication began in December 1970 and ended in December 1971 as a consequence of the passing by the Parliament of Antigua of two Acts dealing with newspapers. The respondent complains that these Acts were unconstitutional and it applied to the High Court of Antigua for redress under section 15 of the Constitution. Section 15 (1) provides:
“If any person alleges that any of the provisions of sections 2 to 14 (inclusive) of this Constitution has been, or is being, contravened in relation to him, then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person may apply to the High Court for redress.”
The appellants contend that the word “person” occurring twice in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v The Attorney General
...be unworkable as there would be no one to enforce section 14 against the State in a constitutional action. The reasoning in Attorney General v. Antigua Times [1975] 3 All E.R. 81 supports the contention that a legal entity as a company or other unincorporated body can institute a constituti......
- Trinidad Island-Wide Cane Farmers' Association Inc. and Attorney General v Prakash Seereeram
- Frank Hope Competent Authority and Attorney General of Guyana v New Guyana Company Ltd and Vincent Teekah
- Barnwell v Attorney-General and Another
-
Locus standi in commonwealth environmental law: caribbean perspectives
...Assembly of "St. Christopher and Nevis." The 4 Camacho & Sons Ltd. v. Customs Collector (1971) 18 W.I.R. 159; A.G. v. Antigua Tunes Ltd. [1976] A.C. 16, affirming on this point (1973) 20 W.I.R. 573, Peterkin Ag. J.A. dissenting; L.J- Williams Ltd. v. Smith (1980) 6 C.L.B. 810. 5 Colfymore v......
-
State proceedings in the Commonwealth Caribbean
...J.). 148 See e.g. Chief of Police v. Powell (1968) 12 W.I.R. 403; Francis v. Chief of Police [1972] A.C. 761; A. G. v. Antigua Times [1976] A.C. 16 (P.C.); Hope v. The New Guyana Co. Ltd. (1979) 26 W.I.R. 233, and Joseph v. A.G. (1980)27W.I.R. 394. 149 See e.g. Camacho and Sons Ltd. v. Coll......
-
Incorporation
...AC 22 Eng. HL. 2. he UK Companies Act 1862 required a company to have a minimum of seven members. 3. [1897] AC 22 Eng. HL. 31. 4. [1975] 3 All ER 81, [1975] 3 WLR 232. 5. Donovan Crawford v FIS SCCA Nos. 64 & 88 of 1999, delivered July 31, 2001(unreported). Incorporation there has been no c......
-
Erosion of Confidentiality in Offshore Financial Centres
...e Courts relied on the view that the legislation is presumed to be constitutional. and also [1975] 3 WLR 232, [1975] 3 All 81.41. Appeal No. 53 of 2005 unreported.42. Notable cases related to the question of attorney client privilege include ......