Latest update December 23rd, 2024 3:40 AM
Apr 29, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
The Minister of Health did something that he regretted. He said something after he claimed he was provoked. He apologized for his outburst.
The matter however did not end there. He has been reportedly reprimanded by his government and his party. He is now the object of protest demonstrations, this despite the fact that he apologized.
It does seem as if justice involves more than just the offering of an apology Minister. It seems that the only satisfaction that will be brooked in this case is the resignation of the Minister. This is what some of the protestors are demanding.
The apology offered by the Minister has not been accepted and from reports in the media, we are told that a criminal complaint has been filed with the police. I recall a criminal complaint was also filed in the matter involving another Government Minister and the statements that he made in a taped telephone conversation.
In that instance the Director of Public Prosecutions had indicated that no threat was issued because the establishment of such a criminal offence requires that the threat be made directly to the person concerned. Another legal luminary had argued that under the common law, there is no known offence of threatening behaviour.
Despite this we have an opinion piece suggesting, but not establishing, that a criminal offence may have been created by virtue of the Minister’s remarks. When opinion makers say such things they must prove their case by providing arguments in favor of their positions. To simply say that a criminal offence was done and not to adduce grounds for this conclusion is most unfortunate.
Against this background, it would be interesting to see what conclusions will be drawn from the police investigation. For one, the evidence has to be tendered and the recording was purportedly made by a third party. That third party would have to come forward and indicate that the recording on the tape was done by him or her and that the Minister did speak the words recorded.
But the issue also goes beyond this. On the recording, the Minister is heard speaking to someone and indicating in a clearly provoked manner what he can do and what he can have others so do. I do not think any reasonable person would say that the Minister was saying that he would actually do the things that he said he can or have others do to the person with whom he had an issue.
But even if one were to conclude that the Minister was saying that he would do those things or have others do those things, it is clear from the recording that the Minister was not addressing the complainant because he was referring to her as “she”, that is in the third person.
Given what the DPP had said in relation to threats having to be made directly to the person concerned, and using that precedent, it would be hard-pressed for a case of threatening behaviour to be established. But that of course is a matter for the police and a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In terms of civil proceedings, I have noted that no civil charges were filed in the previous matter involving another Minister of the government who was accused of leveling threats against this newspaper and its publisher. But it would be interesting to examine this whole issue of the civil offence of threatening behaviour.
This I propose to do in a subsequent column since my views are not necessarily in accordance with that legal luminary who had argued that there is no known offence of threatening behaviour under the common law.
Dec 23, 2024
(Cricinfo) – After a T20I series that went to the decider, the first of three ODIs between India and West Indies was a thoroughly one-sided fare. The hosts dominated from start to finish...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Georgetown was plunged into shock and terror last week after two heinous incidents laid... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The year 2024 has underscored a grim reality: poverty continues to be an unyielding... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]