Privy Council
| Published date | 01 October 2004 |
| Date | 01 October 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.68.5.387.43225 |
| Subject Matter | Privy Council |
Privy Council
Grenada: Criminal Libel—Constitutionality
Worme vCommissioner of Police of Grenada
[2004] UKPC 8
The weekly newspaper Grenada Today published a letter addressed to the
Prime Minister, Dr Keith Mitchell, and signed ‘The People’s Man’. It
contained the following sentence: ‘During the election campaign you
spent millions of dollars to bribe people to vote for you and your party,
disregarding what the law says governing the electoral process.’ The
appellants, the editor and publisher, were charged with the offence of
intentional defamation, contrary to s. 252(2) of the Criminal Code, on
the basis of this publication.
They argued that the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to
criminal libel were inconsistent with the right to free expression guaran-
teed by s. 10 of the Constitution. The Chief Magistrate referred the case
to the High Court, posing three questions relating to the constitutional
validity of the offence of intentional libel. These were, essentially,
whether s. 10 protected the freedom to publish material discussing
political matters, including the suitability of public figures for office, and,
if so, whether s. 10 was violated by the offence contained in s. 252(2) of
the Criminal Code or by the Director of Public Prosecutions in instituting
these proceedings (the questions are set out in full in the judgment of
the Privy Council at [5]).
In the High Court, Alleyne J held (2000, unreported, at [7]) that the
freedom of expression guaranteed by s. 10 of the Constitution protected
the freedom to publish material discussing political matters. He further
held (at [44]) that the Crown had failed to show any clear or pressing
need to circumscribe and inhibit the freedom of expression in the way
and to the extent that s. 252(2) sought to do. He therefore concluded
that the provisions in the Criminal Code relating to the offence of
intentional defamation were unconstitutional, null and void and of no
effect. The Commissioner of Police appealed. The Eastern Caribbean
Court of Appeal (2001, unreported) allowed his appeal and upheld the
constitutional validity of the relevant provisions in the Criminal Code.
The appellants appealed to the Privy Council, arguing that the offence of
intentional libel was unconstitutional.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL
,whilst s. 10 of the Constitution pro-
tected the freedom to publish material discussing political matters or the
conduct of public figures in relation to elections to the House of Repre-
sentatives or in relation to their suitability for membership of the House,
the limitations on freedom of expression imposed by the offence of
intentional libel were not excessive and could be justified in the light of
the objective the offence sought to uphold, namely the punishment of
those who, by false accusation, attacked a person’s reputation.
387
To continue reading
Request your trial