CICA quashes Hill’s online bullying conviction
(CNS): Sandra Hill, the owner of Cayman Marl Road, scored another point in her ongoing legal battles with prosecutors this week when the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal overturned a 2020 conviction for online bullying and harassment.
The ruling is not only significant for Hill, who should get back the $3,000 fine she was forced to pay, but also reinforces the right to free speech, as the conviction appeared to criminalise the work of a member of the media.
Hill was found guilty of using an ICT service to defraud, abuse, annoy, threaten or harass Matthew Lesley, a former political candidate and business leader, after she produced and broadcast a podcast based on a number of allegations made by women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by him.
The exposé came about during the emergence of the #MeToo movement when women began to speak much more openly about the sexual abuse and harassment that many have experienced in everyday life.
But instead of using the civil court to challenge the accusations made by the numerous women who took part in the show, Leslie reported Hill to the police and insisted they investigate her for harassment.
The crown soon advised charging Hill. During the trial, Justice Roger Chapple, who presided over the case, adopted the position that the truth of the content was irrelevant, a position that the appeal court rejected.
In the ruling delivered in open court on Thursday morning and published on the judicial website, the senior judges said the truth or otherwise of what was said “is plainly highly relevant when assessing the proportionality of criminalising it”. They found that the judge “should not have excluded evidence going to the truth of what was said”.
They also stressed that the judge should have taken into account Hill’s belief that what she was saying was true when considering the proportionality of criminalising what she said. The appeal court also found that the judge wrongly framed the issues principally by reference to the rights of others.
“He did not, as he was required to do, approach what was said by reference to what is permissible in a free and tolerant society having regard to the importance of the fundamental right to free expression and all the circumstances,” they said in the ruling. They also found that the judge did not adequately direct himself on the need to give “great weight for free speech” or the need for tolerance of a wide range of opinions.
“Neither did he direct himself that he must give particular weight to free speech given the context that the allegations concerned a person who sought to be elected on a platform of transparency and trust,” the judicial bench found. “Although he did give some consideration to freedom of journalistic expression, he did not ultimately regard it as applicable.”
The case was unusual and had implications for all of the local press as Hill was convicted for harassing Leslie, even though she was exposing a worrying pattern of behaviour, which was possibly criminal, of a leading member of the community who had stood for elections in several cycles.
In the wake of the appeal court’s findings, Hill issued a statement welcoming the ruling. “This judgment is not only a personal vindication but also a crucial affirmation of the right to freedom of expression in our democracy,” she said.
“From the very beginning, I believed something was inherently wrong with the idea that the truth could be deemed irrelevant in a court of law. The Court of Appeal has now confirmed that truth does matter — and always should. This ruling sends a powerful message that the right to speak honestly, particularly on matters of public interest, must be protected.”
As she thanked her legal team, Hill said the victory was not just for her, but for every journalist, activist and citizen who believes in holding power to account.
“With this ruling, not only has the conviction been quashed, but the sentence that followed must also fall away. This means I am entitled to the return of the fine I was ordered to pay and will now regain the right to republish content that I was previously forced to remove,” she added.
See the full ruling below:
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
The Crown shoudl appeal this and seek a new trial. This judgement in no way settles the issue. She got off on a technicality.
What is the technicality? It’s not a technicality, it’s a matter of good law. Good for her!
A retrial would entail allowing (or perhaps mandating) Hill to present evidence supporting the truth of the allegations.
The trial giving rise to the appeal entailed more than a simple “technicality” error. The prosecution and court substantially erred in law.
Since Crown was obviously not sufficiently facile in the legal matters pertaining to the charges they brought, they were quite ill-advised to commence the prosecution. They should have advised Matthew Lesley to file a civil action against Hill–in which case all the facts surrounding the allegations of sexual impropriety could have been aired.
The opposite of a hero as her style has definitely hurt, belittled, bullied and wrongfully accused/reported many.
Congrats Sandy. Can’t believe the prosecutor saw fit to bring this case. Basically trying to criminalize journalism. And the trial judge – “who cares if it was true?” You’ve got to be kidding me. Thank god for appeals courts.
None of her monetized sources earn a penny of my hard-earned money. I believe every person who listens to her fervently prays they never end up in her mouth, for it is fun to gossip, until you or a loved one are the ones whose rear end she is chewing on. “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
“… our quashing of the conviction does not mean that on a proper application of the law and consideration of all the relevant evidence, it necessarily follows that it would not have been open to the judge to convict.”
Words to ponder when considering Ms Hill’s claim of personal vindication. And possibly that she should ponder before republishing…
A hack using AI on her FB page.
And at the same time posting how AI will take the jobs that Caymanians aspire too.
Ask her how many actual Caymanians she employs vs her total employee numbers. Also worth asking why she lets the immigrants that work for her copy text from news articles, verbatim, from websites like NY Times, CNN, Fox, etc. without ever crediting the source. It is only ever corrected when someone blows her up on social media about it, and even then the admission is barely even “oopsie daisy, teehee.”
She doesn’t employ anyone she works with people independently and most are Caymanians.
That’s funny AF – the whole world will be using AI and then what? If Caymanians are not keeping up that’s their own fault. BTW, who has more Caymanians on their platform contributing than her? Surely not CNS or Compost!
Which local businesses sponsor this charlatan? Asking so I can avoid patronizing rhem.
CUC.
May the odds be ever in your favour this summer.
Ah, that explains the favorable reporting.
The appellate judge made clear that the proper application of the law would include consideration of evidence proving or disproving the truth of the allegations that were the subject of Hill’s publication.
Style preferences aside, Sandra is an agitator, and we need more like her, shaking accepted norms, questioning the status quo, and traditional dogma. These challenges, sometimes uncomfortable, are how we can gradually move forward and grow. Cayman is ripe for this, lagging the rest of the world in many important social areas.
We don’t need a political activist who has been enriched by politicians to push certain agendas to be hoisted up as a journalist! She has monetised bullying and fake news. She serves no purpose other than to assist certain political figures stay in power.
I agree that agitators play a vital role in challenging the status quo and pushing for accountability. Sandra certainly fits that mold in many respects, and in a society like ours those voices can be important. The media landscape is evolving rapidly, and her format is increasingly common worldwide, often replacing traditional outlets.
That said, and as a general comment, not specifically concerning the matter with Matthew, but journalistic integrity still matters. While mistakes happen, too often I have observed her rush to be first outweighs the responsibility to be right. Sandra, perhaps more accurately CMR, frequently blurs the line between being an independent blogger and a professional journalist—depending on what suits the moment.
I’m not about to judge what she has or hasn’t said regarding Mr. Leslie. However, when she initially started to spread the story, the fact that she was the one reporting on it gave me a healthy degree of skepticism. It’s not that traditional media are beyond reproach—far from it—but credibility still depends on accuracy, accountability, and a clear commitment to fairness, no matter the platform.
Yes, she should have been in Mexico.
Catron claims to bring the cold hard truth but she also listens to gossip and tries to turn gossip into facts. She does not care who she hurts in the process in her quest to protect certain politicians particularly Wayne Panton.
Every PPM candidate that put themselves forward had to deal with her gossip that were not factual.
She went on a rampage against Juliana, Kenneth and John John yet she conveniently said nothing against Jay and Isaac as it would appear that deals were being brokered to join TCCP and CINP.
Catron would not get away with her behavior in any other jurisdiction.
Some people say don’t challenge her or go against her cause she will do her utmost best to try to find something on you to destroy you or discredit you. That is not journalism.
Those politicians that hide behind her I say shame on you!
Understand, she is not an independent news reporter, she is a journalist/reporter with her own opinions and judgements. You have to take everything she says with a grain of salt and with her own personal viewpoint in mind. She always made it clear that she was not a PPM supporter.
Those independent views come with responsibilities, though. I think she was fortunate to skate away from this last event. If a person seeks the edge for the purpose of entertainment and social views, they lose the right to whinge about it when the edge is found.
She is none of the above. She is trash.
Whether is celebrity magazines, paparazzi photos, or her repugnant brand of bullying, fodder sells as long as people consume it. Intelligent people seek other intelligent people; the same can be said for those with a pack mentality and a need to tear down others.
Poor judgement by the CoA in my opinion. I’m curious how they signaled to the prosecution to not pursue recharging Hill because of the length of time that has passed and as such was no longer in the public interest but failed to also restrict Hill from republishing the material, which she has already been boasting she will be doing shortly. Even if it was in the public interest when Leslie was living in Cayman and was running for public office, that is no longer the case so the public interest argument she was claiming as the reason for the expose also no longer exist. What the judges have said might be correct for anyone else but not Hill, she now has the wind in her sails to use her megaphone to bully and harass anyone.
In my view even if the original judge was wrong to not permit Hill to present her evidence that what she was saying in her blog was truthful, the fact remains that her intent was not to simply report but was clearly to harass and at least annoy Leslie.
The judgement mentions that Leslie was contesting elections with a campaign based on “transparency and trust”, is that really correct or was it just wording used by Hill in her submissions/responses to the charge? I believe it’s the latter, but yet it was repeated by the CoA seemingly as fact (without any substantiation) and appeared to have had some influence on their ruling.
I understand Hill is already boasting on her platform about what she and this judgement has done for journalists in the Caribbean which is not correct. The judgement seem to center on Hill’s restriction of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed (to all) by the Cayman constitution and not because she was/is a journalist.
The judgement if not challenged effectively renders the law under which Hill was charged useless, as it effectively permits anyone in Cayman to use ICT networks to disseminate information with impunity providing what is being said is factual.
Self-righteous Hill is pretending that her motivation is promoting truth, fairness and morality. If this is so, how does she explain having an illicit affair with a married man around 2006/7, and when he broke it off, she created a website about him and published all that he did with her to punish him. He was in his mid-30s and the pressure was too much for him and he suffered a fatal heart attack, leaving a young widow and I seem to remember (although not absolutely sure) they had a young child…so a widow and child without a father.
A couple years later, she was having another affair with a security guard and when he broke it off, she began harassing him. He reported her to the police and I believe she was arrested; not sure any charges were laid. If there are any persons who actively listen/subscribe to CMR, perhaps they can on an open-mic session ask her about these matters…give her a chance tell her side.
Clearly you’re not a lawyer. The DPP gave up before they even arrived in court. That should suffice as an indication of how poor their case was.
So the internet here has now become a troll free-for-all?
Just out of interest what are her qualifications as a journalist?
None and she is spearheading the tired trope of hating expats.
In Sandra’s defense, the current breed of expats did that to themselves. See:
1. Real Estate Industry
2. Offshore Recruitment Industry
3. Service Industry (Hotels/Restaurants)
To name but a few.
The expats that used to come here integrated. The new lot are just that… expats, and usually inconsiderate, disrespectful and ungrateful. Case in point, see your comment. Read the room, goof.
Two Wrongs never make a Right!!!
I dont need the likes of Sandra fighting expats on my behalf! Thanks but no thanks…..
PS. She is married to an Expat and was out bullying political “friends” to get him a job before she maried him.
None.
Who else is willing to talk or write about your pervasive corruption?
What a moron, did she even read the judgement ? Her account of what the court said and what really happened is like night and day
Narcissist on a level with Crack Dealer Kenny
Amen. And a super vindictive b!tch…. Careful…
Well CICA just showed that there is no accountabilty to bad decisions by people with platforms.. Justice… whoo hoo… There will be no stopping her insanity now.
Very interesting case. Have to wonder about that initial charging decision.
Free press needs to be protected. That said, Sandra Hill reports rumors and allegations as fact.
She’s 100% correct that the truth of the statements she made matter; however, she has yet to prove that truth in any official capacity.
Her sources (to my understanding) remain anonymous, which is of course their right when it comes to providing information for a news story. However, for a reporter to then claim that this side of the story is 100% factual is not appropriate.
Her behavior absolutely did constitute bullying and harassment, which he 100% deserved…if and only if the allegations are TRUE. If they’re not true then this whole thing becomes defamation. If the truth can’t be determined, then they become allegations and remain allegations until facts are sorted. Which they weren’t.
She was more than happy to prove them in court but was denied the opportunity do. That’s the whole point of this judgment.
There’s a cozy little spot in hell reserved for her.
Mrs. Hill’s conviction under the ICT Act was overturned because the trial judge neglected to balance her constitutional right to freedom of expression—especially political speech—against the need to protect Mr. Leslie’s reputation, and wrongly barred evidence as to whether her allegations were true.
Vile excuse for a human being.
A sad day for all her victims.
Bigging up da bully XXXX. Sad. But time longer than rope. Hang tight my real Caymanian friends. She going down in a blaze of glory…
Poor you! Sour grapes huh?
Say what you will, negatively, about Sandra Hill and may do, but not only is she the only person willing to “turn over the rug” in Cayman’s public matters but her legal knowledge surpasses the staff of DPP!
I knew she would get-off from this conviction. She wins every time!
Congrats Sandra!
Only if it serves her now or some time down the road. Read up on narcissism. She is a snake in the grass worm….
Exactly…who else dares call out the alleged wrongdoings of our allegedly honorable politicians..!!??
Thank you Ms Sandra for the occasional exposés to keep our overpaid , uneducated and corrupt , on their toes.
Only those that do not pay her.
Thanks for your comment, Sandra.
Where?
The judicial system will let this women keep up her bullying, false accusations and public shaming until she is responsible for somebody taking their own life. She has developed an invincible complex and it’s get more dangerous everytime she is excused for her actions. The fact that the new Premier also associates with her and funds her antics is frightening.
Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. Be ready to strike them down. Premier is no fool. Sandra running the time rope and it running out. Sooner rather than later I hope.
Still only 18 comments on the article about significant increase in the number of sex crimes reported in the Cayman Islands in 2024.
Every time we point out that those crimes (and every other type) have skyrocketed alongside the number of impoverished immigrants we import, we get called xenophobes and racists.
Pipe down. The tourists and investors might find out.
Because someone is speaking the truth does that give the person the right to harass someone? She is a blogger who loves to bully others in the media. Does anyone remember the recent photos she published re Saunder’s alleged freaky behaviour? While I said dah wah he get with his pompous self I wonder why she felt it necessary to provide such graphic information.
While Sandra is all in her feelings and declaring herself a hero for free speech. Please read the judgement. This was merely a technicality and the case could be re-tried and a gulity verdict confirmed.
The trial judge was found to have erred by not allowing evidence which supported the allegations against Matthew. Howver that does not translate into her not being guilty. Technicality for the TV Lawyers.
“36. First, our quashing of the conviction does not mean that on a proper application of the law and consideration of all the relevant evidence, it necessarily follows that it would not have been open to the judge to convict.
37. Second, the allegations in this case go back now some six years. Although we will consider any submissions to the contrary, we doubt that it would now be in the public interest for this case to be re-tried.”
Beyatch still guilty. Teflon Don-da.
The error was certainly not a mere “technicality”. The prosecution had a less than skillful and robust case and the trial judge erred in law.
It is quite apparent that your training is not in law. Here is how things now stand:
When a conviction is quashed, the legal effect is that the prior finding of guilt is nullified; thus the defendant returns to the status of being legally innocent unless or until convicted again.
What the appeals court is saying:
They are not finding the defendant innocent as a matter of fact–they are just overturning the conviction because of the legal issues cited in the judgement. Since there is no longer a valid conviction, the presumption of innocence applies once more.
Should the case be retried, Hill would have the opportunity to prove the veracity of the allegations she published. Things could get far more uncomfortable for Lesley should the women who Me Too’ed testify and give details of the alleged sexual impropriety.