The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

FORMER Attorney General Carl Bethel is appealing the ruling of a judge in his libel case against Cable Bahamas and Carter Broadcasting Media and is seeking $100,000 in damages for a report aired three time on the news, which he claims was defamatory and untrue.

Mr Bethel and his attorney, Michael Foulkes, appeared before Court of Appeal Justices Anita Allen, Stanley John and Neville Adderley arguing that Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett erred in law in a September 20, 2012, ruling.

Sir Michael ruled that a report alleging that Bethel, during his tenure as the AG, bribed the father of a man killed by police officers to the tune of $15,000 to drop his case, was not defamatory.

Attorneys representing the two respective respondents, Leif Farquharson and Craig Butler, argued that the Chief Justice came to the conclusion he did based on the context of the report and how the average ordinary citizen would interpret it.

In the end, the Justices reserved their decision on the matter and ordered that a supplemental record of appeal, containing written defence submissions and witness statements, be submitted to the court within 28 days of yesterday’s proceedings.

“The quicker we get the supplemental record of appeal, the quicker we can begin considering the matter,” Appeal Court President Allen said.

The libel claim and 
subsequent civil action

On August 5, 2009, a day after an inquest into July 9 shooting death 18-year-old Brenton Smith by police was ruled as self-defence, NewsBreak 12 aired a report with an interviewee who claimed that his own son was killed by police a decade ago and that he was offered a $15,000 bribe to drop the case by the then Attorney General.

The interviewee, who also alleged collusion between the then AG and a judge, did not the drop the case and the matter made it to court where the father’s civil action did not succeed. The report was aired three times on television with no account of Mr Bethel’s side of the matter.

Days laters, an apology to Mr Bethel was published, noting the company’s regret for the mistake of calling his reputation and character into question. Mr Bethel, however, did not believe the apology was enough, nor that it was sincere, as it did not state that the initial report was untrue. The former AG sued both entities for libel.

Chief Justice’s ruling

Last September, the Chief Justice ruled that though it was a possible case of defamation, reasonable listeners or viewers could have concluded that the interviewee was making a complaint about what transpired. He ruled that the report was not defamatory and further went on to say that if he was wrong in that regard, then he would only award the plaintiff, Bethel, $5,000 in damages.

Bethel applied to the higher court to challenge that ruling.

Arguments from the plaintiff

In yesterday’s proceedings, Mr Foulkes argued that the judge erred in law when he ruled it was not defamatory, without providing an explanation as to why.

Mr Foulkes argued the judge failed to consider the repeated innuendoes used in the publication and failed to consider the entire report as well. The error, he claimed, came when the judge referred to the dictionary definition of bribery and used it’s secondary meaning and not the primary, where Bahamian Law requires that the primary be used in such cases of libel. Justice Adderley said this was correct.

Mr Foulkes said that the word “bribe” denotes an impression of wrongdoing in the minds of average Bahamians, more so if they did not have the knowledge that an official settlement was on the table.

The attorney also noted that an apology, which he claimed was not considered by the judge, was aired following the initial report, “regretting” having made the mistake of airing the report calling Bethel’s character into question. He said the apology also noted that no effort was made to get a response on the matter from Mr Bethel.

Response

Mr Farquharson, for Cable Bahamas, said if the appeal court was of the view that the Chief Justice was wrong when he came to his conclusion, then the matter should be corrected. He said their defences - written submissions - had not been taken into account when the judge said he would award $5,000 if he was wrong in his finding.

Justice John asked the attorney if he accepted that it should have been considered and he said it should.

Mr Butler, representing CBM, agreed it should be sent back to the lower court if the judge was ruled to be wrong.

Responding to the report itself, Mr Farquharson said too much emphasis was being put on “bribery” and not the issue of the average listener being able to come to their own independent conclusion.

Both attorneys agreed the apology aired was sufficient and indicated what the plaintiff was requesting - a statement that the report was untrue, just in different words.