Radio Jamaica remains liable for libel, but damages fall to J$5.7m

Radio Jamaica won a reduction in damages on 2 October 2026, but failed to overturn the finding that it had defamed retired police superintendent John W Morris. The Court of Appeal cut the award from J$9.5 million to J$5.7 million in a decision that separates the truth of a police raid from an unsupported allegation about its purpose.

The dispute concerned a December 2009 radio report about a search of Morris’s business premises in Montego Bay. The raid happened, but the broadcast linked it to lottery scamming and reported that Morris would be taken to Kingston. Radio Jamaica later apologised for the lottery-scam connection, acknowledging that the raid was not associated with that investigation. The appeal did not establish that Morris had committed a crime.

The court assessed the broadcast as a whole, including its opening words and the report from the scene. Proving that police had searched the premises did not establish the substantial truth of the damaging lottery-scam allegation. Public interest in the story was accepted, but that alone did not establish the defence based on responsible journalism. The court considered verification, timing and tone together, applying a practical and flexible assessment rather than a rigid checklist.

Radio Jamaica nevertheless succeeded on the amount payable. The Court of Appeal found that the original damages comparison did not sufficiently account for differences from the comparator case, or for the reputational impact of the real raid itself. It applied a further 40 per cent reduction to the J$9.5 million award. The earlier apology had already been taken into account; the reduction did not erase liability for the false report.

The court also set aside the interest award because no adequate basis had been given for it in circumstances raising a concern about double compensation. It removed the special costs certificate, noting that only one lawyer had appeared for Morris at trial. The judgment in his favour and his trial costs remained, and he was awarded 70 per cent of the appeal costs, to be agreed or assessed.

Archive report of the 2 October 2026 judgment. The broadcast occurred in 2009, before the Defamation Act, 2013; the court addressed the earlier legal framework. This is a report of this decision, not a complete guide to present defamation law. Targeted official-source checks found no later ruling, but do not establish that no further appeal or subsequent treatment exists.