Truth ‘no defence’ to crime in CMR case

(CNS): Prosecutor Darlene Oko said the truth of what Sandra Hill, the owner of the Cayman Marl Road website, published about former political candidate Matthew Leslie was “no defence” to the charges she faces. In her closing argument in the case against Hill, who has been charged under the ICT law for harassing and abusing Leslie, Oko argued on Friday that Hill targetted him and knew he would be abused by her allegations.

This is the first time that anyone from the media has been prosecuted under section 90 of the Information and Communications Technology Law for annoyance, harassment or abuse based on content that is related to an exposé of allegations against a public figure.

Although Oko argued there was no public interest and Leslie is not a public figure, she said that even if he was, under this section of the law this also was no defence.

However, Leslie has run for office on two occasions. He has also been a vocal advocate for those in poor quality housing and has made claims about the charitable work and support he has given to underprivileged communities in George Town.

In the run-up to the 2017 election, Leslie was caught red-handed procuring the services of a prostitute, which, despite the very public nature of the sexting scandal, did not deter him from continuing on the campaign trail.

Oko argued that the motivations for, and level of, unsubstantiated allegations made by Hill in this case was such that it fell well within the law. She said that what Hill did was exactly what this section was intended to prevent and the legislation makes no exceptions for bloggers or journalists.

Oko said it was not a complicated case because of the evidence before the court, which related largely to a podcast broadcast by Hill last year. She said it was Hill’s own words, where she said the “gig was up” for Leslie, that proved she had intended to expose him on what Oko claimed were unsubstantiated allegations.

The prosecutor argued that Hill knew that what she was doing would harass and abuse Leslie and that was enough for her to be convicted.

Pressing the judge to convict Hill, Oko argued that Hill knew her podcast would annoy, abuse or harass Leslie, regardless of why she did it. She added that whether the allegations were accurate or in the public interest was irrelevant, but that Hill was guilty simply because it was an ICT network and Leslie had made it clear he felt bullied.

However, Hill’s defence attorney, Clayton Phuran, raised concerns about the prosecution and made it clear that this was a very subjective case. He pointed out that just because, in the prosecutor’s opinion, Hill was not a real journalist, she was recognised as such by GIS, the RCIPS and the courts. He also argued that the crown was attempting to dictate how the local media should go about its work and the content it publishes.

Since she was charged Hill has expressed astonishment that this section of the law has been engaged in an effort to criminalise what she produces on the well known site, where she admits to publishing gossip as well as news and opinion. Hill has argued that if Leslie has concerns about what she has said and published about him, then it should be handled in the civil courts in a defamation case.

As Phuran summed up Hill’s defence, he pointed to the importance of freedom of expression and the right Hill had to express an opinion based on the evidence she had seen and heard, some of which she had published.

He argued against the crown’s assertion that Leslie’s departure from the RCIPS under a cloud 20 years ago was not relevant. He pointed out that his departure had involved allegations of sexual impropriety and so it was very relevant to the podcast that was at the root of the charges.

The lawyer noted that the podcast was an exposé that Hill decided to do following the documentary series about R. Kelly, where women had spoken out about being victims of the star’s sexual abuse even though he has never been convicted.

Hill had argued on the stand that she believed the women here also had a right to have their story told and that there was significant evidence, which she had revealed, that Leslie was a sexual predator at the very least. She said there was a public interest in revealing the information she had.

Hill’s attorney also said that Leslie was a liar and had lied on the witnesses stand and contradicted himself and his own evidence. He said he was not a credible witness, as he urged the court to acquit Hill.

Pointing out that the use of this section of the law to curtail freedom of expression was something the court needed to be very cautious about, he said it could discourage journalists from criticising public figures or contributing to discussions surrounding issues of public interest.

In any event, he argued that the crown had not proved its case to the required standard against Hill and the court should find her not guilty.

Justice Roger Chapple, who presided over the case without a jury via Zoom from the UK, said he would aim to have a verdict within three weeks but there was a lot to consider and a lot of material to review.

Hill was bailed to appear on 17 July.

---