THREE senior attorneys have argued that inflammatory statements about a person or entity which precede an adverse act against them are not enough to stand up as evidence in court, and caution should be taken in seeking to link the two.

The views of the three king’s counsel were sought by the Jamaica Observer on Sunday, two days after a gun attack on Nationwide News Network raised questions as to whether that act was fuelled by incendiary remarks made against the station by People’s National Party (PNP) General Secretary Dr Dayton Campbell on September 3, 2023.

Addressing the party’s St Andrew East Central constituency conference, Campbell accused Nationwide of being an “incubator for the Jamaica Labour Party” and named a number of former employees of the station who are now working in Government services.

Campbell’s comments were condemned by the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) which said that such remarks, coming from a prominent political figure, have the potential to place Nationwide journalists at risk of attacks by political activists and party supporters.

“By putting journalists in harm’s way Dr Campbell’s comments are a blatant attack on press freedom and represent a grave escalation of assaults on the principles of a free and independent press — a fundamental pillar of any democratic society,” PAJ President Milton Walker said.

The Media Association of Jamaica and the Government have also condemned the comments, which were further placed under the spotlight when a gunman on a motorcycle fired shots from the gate at Nationwide into the media house’s parking lot last Friday afternoon. Two vehicles in the parking lot, one of them belonging to a staff member, were hit by bullets. No one was injured, however.

Speaking during the station’s evening news and current affairs programme Nationwide@5 on Friday evening, Nationwide CEO Cliff Hughes said he had no evidence to link the attack on his station with Campbell’s comments. However, he pointed to a concern he had expressed that the PNP general secretary’s comments had the potential to place Nationwide staff in danger.

On Sunday, defence attorney Peter Champagnie said that if criticism is made of an entity or individual and then subsequently something adverse happens to that entity or individual, this is “not enough from an evidentiary point in law to say that there is a nexus between the two”.

“Indeed, accusations of political bias of an entity would fall within that person’s right to exercise his or her constitutional right to free speech,” he said.

Champagnie further pointed out that the offence of incitement, for example, requires a specific intent and that “the threshold to get this is high”.

“Statements made on the political hustings, in some instances, are inflammatory, however they hardly ever [if at all] rise to the level of being actionable within the realm of the criminal law. Great caution, therefore, should be exercised in wanting to equate such statements with any criminal offence such as incitement,” he said.

“Note should also be taken of the provisions of Section 13(3)b and c of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms under our constitution. These provisions guarantee the right to freedom of thought, observance of political doctrine, and free speech. Bearing all of these factors in mind, the appropriate commentary should be the insistence on political maturity from our politicians who make statements which fall short of any inspirational message or result in this kind of discussion now before us,” he said.

Concurring with Champagnie, another senior attorney (who opted not to be named) contended that there are no matters that can be resolved in court without credible evidence to support the allegations.

Yet another prominent senior attorney pointed out that as “harsh and imprudent” as Dr Campbell’s comments were, “I don’t think he can be liable for what the gunman did, certainly not in a legal sense.

“His statement was intended to generate a political impact, but not violence. We are not even sure what motivated the shooting — exuberant PNP activist or Jamaica Labour Party activist trying to sink Campbell further? We don’t have all the facts yet,” said the attorney who also declined to be identified.