It was Barrow and Barrow versus the Belize Times and the PUP in the Supreme Court today. Now, the injunction granted by the Chief Justice is making big news in media, legal and political circles. On behalf of Lois Young Barrow, Dean Barrow applied to the Supreme Court for an interim injunction against the Belize Times. The application comes after the Times published, over the past three weeks, articles and ads attacking Young-Barrow.
The injunction sought to ban the paper from making more attacks until a libel case is heard. It's an unusual request because until libel has been established in court, it's very difficult for the court to tell a newspaper what it can and cannot publish, especially if, as in the case of the Times, its lawyer claims he can back up the paper's claims with proof. In fact such an injunction has never been granted in Belize and is an extreme rarity even in the commonwealth. But today in court, the Chief Justice's considered opinion was that in these particular circumstances, the request was justified and he granted the injunction. That means that until the libel case is heard, the Belize Times is barred from publishing such attacks on Lois Young Barrow.
So does it hinder free expression, or is it the warranted protection of the reputation a private citizen in public life? Senior counsel Dean Barrow discussed the fine consideration that must go into granting such an injunction.
Dean Barrow, Senior Counsel
"In order to grant the interim injunction, the judge has to be careful that he is not trespassing against the sacrosanct right of the media and of all persons to freedom of expression. He has to be careful because the question of whether what is being complained of is liable is only decided finally at trial. So he finds himself having to come to a preliminary view that it is on the face of it, or it appears to be on the face of it, strong liable. And then he still has to be careful because, as was said by the attorney for the Belize Times, if the defendant intends to raise a defense of justification at the trial, the judge at this stage has to decide preliminary that it doesn't appear, on the facts such as he knows them at this juncture, that such a difference will succeed.
One of the arguments put up by the lawyer for the Belize Times was precisely
that this lady in effect ought to expect to be savaged because she is a public figure and the judge said, 'oh no, make a distinction between the politicians who are clearly public figures and people who practice their professions and who might even be, as Lois is, a member of an association such as ACB that speaks out on issues that prick their civic minded conscience.'
Lois is first of all, like I said, not a public political figure and secondly the attacks arose in consequence of her having spoken out at the BTL AGM and on the media the following day, actions that were by and large universally applauded by right thinking people in the society. Clearly this is a one of a kind set of circumstances where in the face of what the consensus sees as something to be applauded, the Belize Times counter-intuitively savagely attacks the person speaking out."
We were unable to reach the Belize Times attorney Kareem Musa for comment. Because it was an ex-parte application, he was only notified of the hearing a short time before. Higherup's in the PUP say they are inclined to apply to a higher court to have the injunction discharged. They maintain that they have proof for the allegations made against Young-Barrow. Of course, in this spat with Young-Barrow, it's hard not to note the twinning of interests between the PUP and BTL's majority shareholder Michael Ashcroft.
