DPP, DRP head differ on Clause 16 of proposed Cybercrime Bill

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Colin Williams is of the opinion that not everyone who can read and write are automatic legal experts.

Williams made this statement on WE FM on Wednesday, during a discussion on the proposed Cybercrime Bill.

The DPP explained that the drafters who write law are trained to word laws in a certain way, {{more}}using certain language and expressions that have been tried and tested and have interpretations as to what they mean.

His comment came after leader of the Democratic Republican Party (DRP) Anesia Baptiste, in a letter published in Search­light on July 26 questioned Clause 16 of the proposed bill.

“Intentional or Reckless Cyberbullying is done if you publish information (including images, statements etc) using a computer system which causes a person “fear, intimidation”…or causes “detriment to health, self-esteem etc.” Not only are these words vague, subjective and lacking legal certainty and therefore not meeting the standard requirement of properly drafted law, but their broadness also means that the section can give rise to abuse by prosecuting and judicial authorities and the very TRUTH can be criminalized, just because someone claims that its publishing via a computer system “causes” them to FEEL any of the above,” Baptiste said in her letter.

Williams, in his contribution to the discussion also argued that before a case can be taken before the court, the prosecuting team has to go through a process known as the “full code test”.

The DPP said the “full code test” is a set of questions that consists of two stages — the evidential and the public interest aspect.

The evidential stage would ask questions like: “are there legal rules that are relevant to this trial in particular”; “what explanations has the suspect given”; “is the court likely to find it credible in light of the evidence on hold”; “does that evidence support innocent explanation.”

The public interest stage would question: “is a conviction likely to result in a significant sentence”; “did the offence involve the use of a weapon”; “was the offence premeditated”; “was the offence carried out by a group”; “was the offence committed in the presence of or close proximity to a child.”

Williams made this point to support his view that the judicial system cannot be ‘abused’, contrary to Baptiste’s opinion.

Baptiste, in her letter, also stated that Clause 16 will “breed more thin-skinnedness and discord in the population.”

However, the DPP stated that the proposed bill is offering protection and also stated that laws evolve, and while they evolve, one cannot foresee every single thing that is going to happen. (CM)