Freedom of expression - prosecution for criminal libel - existence of offence necessary and justified in democratic society

Worme and another v Commissioner of Police of Grenada: PC (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe): 29 January 2004

The defendants, the editor and publisher of a weekly newspaper in Grenada, were charged with intentional libel under section 252(2) of the criminal code after publishing a letter accusing the prime minister of Grenada of having bribed people to vote for him.

They contended that the offence of criminal libel infringed their freedom of expression under section 10 of the constitution and that the defence of absolute privilege under section 257(1)(h) 'if the matter is true, and if it is found by the jury that it was for the public benefit that it should be published' reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal of Grenada upheld the constitutionality of the relevant provisions.

The defendants appealed to the Privy Council.

Andrew Nicol QC, Dr Francis Alexis (of the Grenada Bar) and Ruth Brander (instructed by Simons Muirhead and Burton) for the defendants; James Dingemans QC and Simon Davenport (instructed by Charles Russel) for the prosecutor.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that where section 257(1)(h) was relied on as a defence it should be construed as imposing a burden on the prosecution of proving both that the statement complained of was false and that its publication was not for the public benefit; that it was in the public interest that the reputation of public figures should not be debased falsely; and that, accordingly, the offence of criminal libel under section 252(2) was 'reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons' and was 'reasonably justifiable in a democratic society' in terms of section 10(2) of the constitution.

(WLR)