Prejudicial or not?

THIS newspaper now finds itself caught between two opposing legal views with respect to the reporting of evidence being heard before the Commission of Inquiry into the Piarco Airport Development Project. On one side is Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson who has cautioned us in a letter about one of our reports, claiming that it had "a tendency to prejudice two important issues that are the subject of criminal proceedings." According to the DPP, the article, headlined "Maritime — Spider in web of corruption," which appeared in Newsday on June 11, 2003, "presupposes that there is corruption and that Maritime is at the centre of such corruption." While we are grateful for the DPP's caution, our problem with it is that the Newsday report to which he referred is a factual account of the evidence given to the Commission by Deputy Registrar Francis Sandy and the comments made upon it by Mr Theodore Guerra SC, lead attorney for the Commission.

We saw no reason not to publish this report as we have been covering proceedings of the Inquiry since it started last August, fully aware that the hearings are privileged and the testimony coming out of it would have great public interest. Now we have the DPP warning us that our factual report of June 11 had "a tendency to prejudice" certain criminal matters now being heard. The fact is that, earlier in the Inquiry, a similar point had been made but Chairman of the Commission Clinton Bernard had summarily dismissed it, assuring us that he would not permit any prejudicial matter coming before the Commissioners to be heard in public. Yesterday, contrary to the DPP's caution, Mr Bernard repeated categorically his view that nothing said before the Inquiry had affected or impacted on certain current criminal matters. In any case, the former Chief Justice pointed out, anybody who held an opposing view was entitled to seek a resolution in the courts.

Our difficulty becomes clear: Who is right and who is wrong, the chairman of the Inquiry or the DPP? We are hoping that this issue can be clarified without anyone going to Court, since it not only concerns us but, in fact, the country's media as well. It falls into territory we have never travelled before, having an Inquiry dealing with a billion dollar project while criminal charges arising out of the same development are also being heard. We understand the DPP's responsibility in warning us. He says: "I wish to remind you and place on record my concerns that arise from the aforementioned article published by your newspaper. Such publications as you must appreciate could well be used by the defence in the captioned proceedings as a basis for applying to stay the criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudice. Such applications and adverse pre-trial publicity can be avoided and must be avoided by responsible journalism."

The DPP's point about prejudice is well taken but, we must ask, does it apply to the Inquiry's hearings? We cannot ignore the fact that Chairman Bernard is a former Chief Justice of our country who would be fully aware of such a possibility and, we feel sure, would also be concerned not to allow matters transpiring before the Commission to prejudice the trial of persons charged with criminal offences. Nevertheless, in the interest of both the Press and public we would like to hear the views of the Law Association and senior members of the bar on this controversial and befuddling issue.