Antigua Times Ltd v the Attorney General et Al

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Louisy, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 June 1972
• Neutral Citation: AG 1972 HC 3
• Docket Number: Not yet available
• Date: 23 June 1972

High Court of Justice

Louisy, J.

Not yet available

Antigua Times Limited

and

the Attorney General et al

Ash Lincoln Q.C. for the plaintiff with J.R. Henry Q.C. for Clarke.

Platts-Mills, Q.C. for the defendants with the Attorney General, Lockhart, and S. Christian.

Constitutional law - Civil Rights — Freedom of expression — Newspaper Registration (Amendment) Act, No. 8 of 1971 — Constitution of Antigua, s.10.

Constitutional law - Civil Rights — Freedom of Expression — Newspaper Registration (Amendment) Act, No. 8 of 1971 — Constitution of Antigua s.10.

Constitutional law - Civil Rights — Freedom of Expression — Newspaper Surety Ordinance (Amendment) Act, No. 9 of 1971.

Constitutional law - Locus Standi — Constitution of Antigua — Newspaper Registration (Amendment) Act 1971, No. 8 of 1971 — Newspaper Surety Ordinance (Amendment) Act No. 9 of 1971.

Constitutional law - Freedom of the press.

Constitutional law - Civil Rights — Freedom of expression.

Company law - Legal personality.

Facts: The issue was whether the Newspaper Registration Amendment Act was unconstitutional. Evidence revealed that the Act required that the plaintiffs obtain a licence from the Cabinet and pay a fee of $600.00 before it could publish its newspaper.

Facts: The issue was whether the criteria of a “moderate figure” could be used to challenge the constitutionality of a newspaper registration fee. Evidence revealed that people wishing to publish a newspaper were required under the act to pay a fee of $600.00.

Facts: The question for determination was whether the above Act was constitutional. Evidence revealed that there were instances where newspapers found liable for libel were unable to pay the judgment costs to the plaintiffs. The above Act required that all newspapers pay a $10,000 deposit or offer equivalent surety in the form of a policy of insurance or bank guarantee.

Facts: The issue was whether corporation had locus standi to bring a constitutional action. Evidence revealed that the plaintiff company brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the above Acts.

Facts: The issues were the constitutionality of legislation relating to the press. The issues were: whether section 2(1)(b)(1) of the Newspaper Registration (Amendment) Act No. 8 of 1971 which stated that no person should publish or cause to publish a newspaper in Antigua unless a licence was first obtained from the Cabinet and an annual licence fee was paid ultra vires The Antigua Constitution Order 1967, s.10; whether section 2(2) of The Newspaper Surety Ordinance (Amendment) Act, No. 9 of 1971 which stated that a publisher must deposit $10,000.00 as a security for the satisfaction of libel judgments which might be obtained against the publisher was ultra vires The Antigua Constitution Order, section 10; whether a publishing company was “a person” contemplated by the legislature for the purposes of section 15 of the Constitution Order; whether Parliament had the authority to pass laws which infringed the provisions of the Constitution; whether the proposition that any law was constitutional which provided for a fee for registration of newspapers, such fee being a modest one, was tenable in law and whether the court had authority to question the quantum of any fee which was validly imposed by the Legislature.

Facts: The issues were the constitutionality of legislation relating to the press. The issues were: whether section 2(1)(b)(1) of the Newspaper Registration (Amendment) Act, No. 8 of 1971 which stated that no person should publish or cause to publish a newspaper in Antigua unless a licence was first obtained from the Cabinet and an annual licence fee was paid ultra vires The Antigua Constitution Order 1967, s.10; whether section 2(2) of The Newspaper Surety Ordinance (Amendment) Act, No. 9 of 1971 which stated that a publisher must deposit $10,000.00 as a security for the satisfaction of libel judgments which might be obtained against the publisher was ultra vires The Antigua Constitution Order, section 10; whether a publishing company was “a person” contemplated by the legislature for the purposes of section 15 of the Constitution Order; whether Parliament had the authority to pass laws which infringed the provisions of the Constitution; whether the proposition that any law was constitutional which provided for a fee for registration of newspapers, such fee being a modest one, was tenable in law and whether the court had authority to question the quantum of any fee which was validly imposed by the Legislature.

Facts: One of the issues in this case was whether the plaintiff company was “a person” properly before the court for the purposes of section 15 of the Constitution.

Held: The law would make obtaining a licence rest on the will of the Cabinet and this would strike at the root of freedom of expression. Further s.10(2) of the Constitution sets the reasons for which freedom of expression may be curtailed. These include protection of public safety etc. The pre-censorship proposed by the Act could not be justified under s.10(2) of the Constitution. Finally, in passing a fee for the publication of a newspaper is a hindrance to freedom of expression and therefore is unconstitutional.

Held: The question of the “quantum” of the fee was strictly a matter of policy with the discretion of the Legislature. The “moderate figure” test was not one which the court could entertain. This aspect of the plaintiff's claim failed.

Held: The restriction of freedom of expression had to be justified under s.10(2) of the Constitution of Antigua (for example, to protect public safety etc.), but s.10(2) does not allow restriction of freedom of expression to confer the benefits to the public stated in the Act (i.e. to provide a fund to pay for libel suits). The Act is therefore a hinderance to freedom of expression and is accordingly unconstitutional.

Held: A corporation was not a “citizen” when dealing with privileges and immunities clause, but a corporation was a “person” within the meaning of the equal protection and due process of law clauses. The corporation had locus standi and the objection was overruled.

Held: The provisions for obtaining a licence from Cabinet in section 2(1)(b)(1) of Act No. 8 of 1971 were unconstitutional. The requirement laid down in section 2(2) of Act No. 9 of 1971 for a security deposit was unconstitutional. A publishing company as a legal person was “a person” contemplated by the order for protection under s.10. Any fee which is imposed by the legislature must be of the nature or character which it is within the power of the Legislature to prescribe, and the proposition that such a fee, once modest, was constitutional, was untenable in law. Judgment for plaintiff. (Judgment reversed on appeal to Privy Council)

Held: The provisions for obtaining a licence from Cabinet in section 2(1)(b)(1) of Act No. 8 of 1971 were unconstitutional. The requirement laid down in section 2(2) of Act No. 9 of 1971 for a security deposit was unconstitutional. A publishing company as a legal person was “a person” contemplated by the order for protection under s.10. Any fee which is imposed by the legislature must be of the nature or character which it is within the power of the Legislature to prescribe, and the proposition that such a fee, once modest, was constitutional, was untenable in law. Judgment for plaintiff. (Judgment reversed on appeal to Privy Council)

Held: A corporation as a legal person is “a person” contemplated by the Antigua Constitution Order, 1967 for protection under s.10.

Louisy, J.

1 The Parliament of Antigua (hereinafter called the (“Parliament”) passed in the latter part of 1971, two laws-

• (a)The Newspaper Registration (Amendment) Act, 1971, No.8 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act 8 of 1971;

• (b)The Newspaper Surety Ordinance (Amendment) Act 1971 No.9 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act 9 of 1971.

2 Both Acts came into operation on 1 ^st January, 19742 and amend respectively the Newspaper Registration Act Cap. 318 and the Newspaper Surety Ordinance Cap. 319 of the Revised Laws of Antigua. The relevant part of Act No.8 of 1971 reads as follows:–

• “1A. In this Act the word “newspaper” shall have the same meaning as defined in section 2 of the Newspaper Surety Ordinance.

• “1B. (1) No person shall publish or cause to be published any newspaper unless he has obtained a license from the Cabinet in respect of the newspaper published or caused to be published by him and has paid the annual licence fee prescribed by this Act.

  Provided that every person who prints or publishes a newspaper registered under the provisions of the Principal Act fifteen days before the commencement hereof and has paid the annual licence fee prescribed by this Act shall be deemed to have granted a licence.

• (2) A licence issued under this section shall be signed by the Secretary to the Cabinet and the person named and in the licence as the publisher of the newspaper specified therein shall on or before the 2 ^nd day of January in every year pay into the Treasury the sum of six hundred dollars.

• (3) If the publisher of a newspaper to whom a licence has been granted fails to pay the sum of six hundred dollars on or before the 22nd day of January in every year the licence shall be invalid until such payment has been made.

• (4) If any person shall publish or cause to be published any newspaper without holding a valid licence under this section he shall be guilty of an offence and shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine of five hundred dollars for every day on which such newspaper is published.”

3 The relevant part of Act No. 9 of 1971 reads as follows:–

“2. Section 3 of the Principal Law is hereby amended as follows-

• (a) by renumbering the section as section 3(1); and

• (b) by adding the following as subsection (2) thereof-

(2) No person shall print or publish or cause to be printed or...