Members of the Anguilla House of Assembly have been advised that while they are in a privileged position to say what they wish in parliament, they have to be careful not to repeat certain statements outside the House in public to avoid the possibility of being sued in court for libel or defamation.

Hon. David Carty addressing House of Assembly

The timely warning came from Speaker of the House, the Hon. David Carty, on Tuesday this week, just prior to the start of the Budget Debate. Mr. Carty, who is continuing to implement ways of reforming procedures and systems in the House, was at the time advising the parliamentarians that members of the public were complaining about their conduct in the Assembly.

He prefaced his statement by noting that the Minister of Finance, Victor Banks, had delivered a Budget Address, last week, which was perhaps the most important one ever given in the House in light of the economic situation globally and the fact that Anguilla has to be very careful. He pointed out that all the members had the onerous responsibility to guide the affairs of the island correctly.

Government side of the House of Assembly

“It does this Assembly no service if we degenerate into catcalls back and forth and, if I may say so, nonsense,” he went on. “I would like us to really focus on what is before us today. We do not have to agree with each other, but we can do so with a certain amount of dignity.” He reminded the House of Rule 48 which authorises the Speaker or Chairman to order any Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to draw immediately from the Assembly’s Chambers. He warned that he would consider any catcalling and shouting across the aisle to be disorderly conduct necessitating the required response.”

Mr. Carty continued by stating the real matter to which he wanted to draw the attention of members: “I also want to say this very clearly, that disciplinary powers that are given to the Speaker of any Assembly ensure simply that debate is focused and that members rights to freedom of speech are balanced by civil and respectful discourse during debate. On that point, I want to advise the House of a matter that you should pay close attention to.

Opposition members Hubert Hughes and Edison Baird

You all know that whatever is said in this House is absolutely privileged. You derive that right as members of a Commonwealth Parliament from the 1688 Bill of Rights, 320 years ago…Article 9 of the Bill of Rights said very clearly that freedom of speech and debates or procedure in parliament ought not to be impeached by any court or place out of parliament. That is the basis of your fundamental protection and absolute privilege to say what you want inside this chamber but that has to be balanced by the respect and dignity that this chamber should have.”

“And in that regard, I wish to tell you a little story. On December 9th, 1997 in the parliament of New Zealand, a parliamentarian by the name of Jennings rose and defamed a member of the Wool Board, a Mr. Buchanan (to put it in local Anguillian parlance, he cursed him out). There was nothing that Mr. Buchanan could do because Mr. Jennings said what he said in parliament. He had absolute privilege.”

“However, the next year, February 15th, Mr. Jennings was interviewed by the press and he was asked about his comments with regard to Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Jennings said: ‘I do not resign from anything I said with respect to the member of the Wool Board. In other words, I stand by what I said in the House.’

“Mr. Buchanan sued. The High Court of New Zealand agreed with Mr. Buchanan and fined Mr. Jennings fifty thousand dollars because in the eyes of the High Court he had effectively repeated what was said in the House, even though he did not use the exact words he said in the House. Mr. Jennings quite naturally appealed but the Appeals Court turned him down yet again. He went all the way up to the Privy Council and in July 2004, the Privy Council agreed that Mr. Jennings was wrong and that he had effectively repeated what he said in the House, establishing the doctrine of what is now known as ‘effective repetition.’

“Parliaments across the Commonwealth are deeply concerned about this because it shows that the court is now beginning to reach its arm into the Assembly’s Legislature and interfere. There is deep concern across the Commonwealth on this very point; but is speaks to the matter that if gentlemen who say something about members of the public here [in the House], which perhaps you would not say outside, and that some member of the public or the press interview you on those remarks, and you say “I stand by what I said,” you are in threat of being taken to court for libel.

Mr. Carty was of the opinion that such a situation could be avoided in a small community like Anguilla. He said that parliaments across the region were now scrambling to put provisions in the fundamental rights chapter enshrining in the constitution fundamental freedom of privilege and absolute privilege that the House should have.

“I say that warn you and to underscore the need for us not to necessarily go into areas that we do not need to dwell and to maintain the dignity of the House,” Mr. Carty added.

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News