A Court order was issued recently forcing those in the Cayman media to submit the stories they were going to publish or broadcast concerning a certain trial to attorneys for the prosecution and defence for vetting before publication.
We at Cayman Free Press fought this order and were successful in getting it overturned.
Our legal counsel was able to prove that in the Cayman Islands the judge had no power to make such an order.
If, though, it had been decided that the judge did have power to make the order, Cayman Free Press and its attorneys were more than willing to argue that he should not have exercised his power in the way he did, in order to protect the right of free press in this country.
It is a fundamental principle of our law that justice must be administered in public and should be capable of being freely reported. While such a principle must inevitably be subject to exceptions, in our view the freedom of the press should be suspended only in the most extreme circumstances, which neither we nor our legal counsel believed existed in the case in question.
CFP appreciates and understands why the judge sought to impose the order. It was his desire to ensure that the defendant received a fair trial.
That is our wish, too, not just in this case, but in all court cases.
Cayman Free Press has a history of fairly and accurately reporting matters from court.
More often than not, we err on the side of caution. That is our conservative nature. This is our 40th year of publishing the news in the Cayman Islands and in that time we have built a reputation of honesty and integrity.
We do not find it necessary, as some media do, to sensationalise or editorialize in our news reporting.
CFP realizes the importance of what we do. It is our job to be the eyes and ears of the public who may not always have access to important information.
A senior English judge, Sir John Donaldson, wisely said in a leading English media case in 1990 , that it was crucial to protect freedom of the press because ‘… the media are the eyes and ears of the general public. They act on behalf of the general public. Their right to know and their right to publish is neither more nor less than that of the general public. Indeed, it is that of the general public, for whom they are trustees.’
It is the job of the press in court cases to ensure openness and fairness for the defendant as well as the prosecution.
In reversing the order, the judge had strong words for all media. He warned that if anything is published or broadcast about the trial that he considers might impair a fair trial or a fair result by the jury, he will cite those who publish or broadcast such statements for contempt of court; if found guilty by him, they could face imprisonment and/or a fine in the six figure range.
While we didn’t approve of his original order, we certainly think his warning to all media has merit.
Press freedom is necessary in any democratic society.
But with that freedom comes a wealth of responsibility.
Related Videos
