Hobbling the press

The Appeal Court, sworn to uphold the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago and with it the Freedom of the Press, may nonetheless, in an incredibly worded statement made on Tuesday by one of its members, have paved the way, however inadvertently, for the hobbling of the Press. The two-member Appeal Court, comprising Justices Roger Hamel-Smith and Margot Warner, in dismissing an appeal by Attorney Clyde Crevelle against a decision by a Magistrate who had found him guilty of spitting on Guardian photographer, Brian Ng Fatt, has censured the Press for doing its job, as well as virtually imposed limitations albeit in limited circumstance.

The photographer had taken Crevelle’s picture while covering a matter in which Crevelle was involved and had drawn a spitting response from the lawyer. The Court, went beyond largely confining the wording of its decision to the clearly outrageous act by an Officer of the Court, and in the process sought to limit the Freedom of the Press. The Court declared that while it might be the function of the Press to report news, and that part of that function might be to publish photographs of persons involved in matters before the Court, “we think that the persons assigned should respect the wishes of those who prefer not to have their photographs taken and refrain from “stalking” them for that purpose.” Was the Court seeking to give its own definition of Freedom of the Press, which forms a critical part of  Chapter One, Part 1, Section 1 (k) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago - “The Recognition and Protection of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms?”

It is the Supreme Court of Judicature of Trinidad and Tobago that citizens must turn to for redress and for an interpretation of the Constitution, and when there has been a clearly demonstrated limitation of the fundamental human rights and freedoms of citizens. Yet oddly enough the Court has sought, however unintentionally, to redefine this specific right and freedom. The media representative had to act with dispatch to get Crevelle’s photograph while he  headed out of the precincts of the Court. Taking a broad view of the Court’s comments, is the Court inferring that Press photographers should approach persons who have appealed decisions of the Court, or for example accused persons, for their permission to have their photographs taken? It is unlikely that Police officers on duty would allow newspaper photographers to inquire of persons, accused or otherwise, who are in a Court to obtain permission to have their pictures taken.

While it is not our intention to reduce the potentially media hobbling aspect of the Court’s decision to an absurdity, can anyone believe that Press and television cameramen/women should first approach persons appearing before our Courts for this permission?  In addition, it is grossly unfair to media representatives and indeed to the profession of journalism, for an Appeal Court Judge or anyone to describe that a news photographer, who stands patiently outside the precincts of a Court to photograph someone who has a Court matter, is stalking that person. Media coverage of an event, or indeed the range of that coverage, is determined by whether and to what extent it is deemed newsworthy. Print and electronic media editors, reporters and photographers and/or cameramen/women do not capriciously select what events are to be covered, nor what persons are to be highlighted. In turn, the purpose of the media coverage is to give the reading, viewing and listening public a direct access to what is going on in the country, the region and the world. To limit that access without justifiable reason is to limit people’s fundamental human rights and freedoms, freedoms we may add that are constitutionally guaranteed. The Appeal Court is the last place we would expect such an opinion to be expressed.