Cayman Free Press has been successful in getting a court order varied and provisions hampering media coverage of a trial set aside.
Mr. Justice Dale Sanderson on 12 January issued an order that gave media permission to cover the attempted murder trial Sheldon Brown only ‘if they first provide a copy of what they intend to report to the Crown and to the defence.’
If the two sides had no objections to the reports, they could be published or broadcast. In the event of objections, the report would be referred to Mr. Sanderson.
The order was made in an effort to ensure a fair trial and unbiased jury.
‘We appreciate the desire for a fair trial,’ said Cayman Free Press Editor Tammie C. Chisholm. ‘We, too, desire a fair trial in the matter before the courts and in all trials and court proceedings. That is why it is so important that freedom of the press be upheld.’
Upon learning of the order, Cayman Free Press contacted legal counsel and began the work of getting the 12 January order amended or reversed.
‘We were extremely concerned about the order because it appeared to us a clear assault on the freedom of press and had the potential to set a dangerous precedent,’ said Mrs. Chisholm. ‘If attorneys or judges are allowed to vet news reports before they are published or broadcast, where would the action stop? It is a policy of Cayman Free Press not to let reports and stories be approved by anyone but the editor before publication. If the courts could implement such an order, what would stop Government or any other group or agency from making the same demands?
CFP was the only media house that challenged the order.
CFP did comply with the order inasmuch that no stories about the trial were published until the order was reversed because CFP refuses to let anyone vet stories before they are published. Following the lifting of the order, full, detailed stories of court action in the Brown case have been published daily in the Caymanian Compass.
‘We were being hampered in our efforts to present to the public the factual events of this trial by the actions of other members of the media,’ said Cayman Free Press Managing Director Brian Uzzell. ‘This cannot be allowed to happen. There are laws and regulations in place to prevent this situation and this correct course should be followed.
‘What did happen has a disturbing air of censorship about it and this is why CFP had to take this course of action. I involved considerable time and expense, but if you believe as we at CFP do – in the freedom of the press – then you have to be prepared to undertake the necessary actions that this belief requires,’ he said.
After listening to arguments from CFP attorneys, the Crown and the defence, Mr. Sanderson concluded ‘that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to make an order preventing or delaying the publication of these proceedings absent legislation to do so. I am, therefore, going to vary my previous order and set aside the provisions that I made.’
Instead, Mr. Sanderson gave all media a warning:
‘My warning is this – the media may publish an accurate and fair account of the evidence that is led in these proceedings before the jury. They are not entitled to publish anything else. In particular, they are not entitled to publish or broadcast any commentary any statement which by innuendo could be prejudicial to the defendant, Mr. Brown. Their publications and broadcasts are confined to the evidence that is led. If the press or the media wish, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Austin-Smith have agreed to look at any copy that they propose. They do so for the purposes of assisting each other and the judicial system in ensuring that this trial is fair and not prejudicial to the defendant. They do not do so with a desire of censoring the press. My caution will go further – if there are statements, which I consider to be prejudicial and which I consider might impair a fair trial or a fair result by this jury, I will cite those who publish such statements for contempt of court. If found guilty, they may well expect a fine in the six figure range if I hear the matter. If some other judge hears it, it is entirely up to them.’
The initial order on 12 January was issued because, Mr. Sanderson said, there had been two potential areas where other local members of the media went beyond what ought to be reasonably reported during the conduct of the proceedings.
He, Crown counsel and defence counsel all agreed that the media referred to was not Cayman Free Press or the Caymanian Compass.
A report on local television station CITN was cited in court.
Mr. Sanderson said that at the beginning of the trial he refused an application from Brown’s attorney requesting an order banning publication of the trial proceedings.
Mr. Sanderson said the application was refused because ‘the press has the job of accurately reporting the proceedings that occur in these courts, and the public generally have a right to know what is happening in the courts.
‘I assumed, wrongly, that the media would report this case responsibly. That assumption was proved wrong when it was drawn to my attention that the local television station, CITN, published two news reports which did not follow the usual rule of reporting the evidence that was led in trial, but rather made commentary about the accused.’
The commentary could have been considered prejudicial and could have influenced a juror, he said, calling the report troubling.
Following the judge’s reversal of his order and issuance of a stern warning to all media, radio station Z99 was called to court to explain why it should not be held in contempt of court after broadcasting a report that referred to Brown as a ‘crime lord.’
Mr. Sanderson has asked Attorney General Sam Bulgin to begin the process of charging the radio station with contempt of court.
Related Videos
