[1] Prepared by Howard Rubin and Gail Davidson of Lawyers Rights Watch Canada.  Mr. Rubin and Ms Davidson are members of the Law Society of British Columbia, Canada.

[2] [A Draft] Statement on Freedom of Expression Annexed to The Latimer House Guidelines for the Commonwealth adopted 19 June 1998 by A Joint Colloquium on “Parliamentary Supremacy and Judicial Independence…towards a Commonwealth Model” held at Latimer House in the United Kingdom 15-19 June 1998.  Over 60 participants attended representing 20 Commonwealth countries and 3 overseas territories.

[3] Joint Declaration of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (London, under the auspices of Article 19, 26 November 1999).

[4] “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

[5] “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

[6] African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CSB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982) entered into force Oct. 21, 1986. Article 9.2 “Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law. Article 13.1 “Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provision of the law.”

[7] Callum Kelly “Let the Chilling Winds Blow: The Canadian Position on Defamation and Criminal Libel in Relation to Public Figures.” p. 5.

[8] Cory J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal R. v. Koptyo (1988) 47 D.L.R. (4^th ) 213 at 227 as quoted in Callum Kelly, “Let the Chilling Winds Blow: The Canadian Position on Defamation and Criminal Libel in Relation to Public Figures” p.1.

[9] Handyside v. United Kingdom (1979-80) 1I.H.R.R. 737 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) December 7, 1976, SeriesA No. 24, At para 49.

[10] Castells v. Spain, April 23, 1992, Series A, No. 236 (Eur. Ct. H.R.).

[11] Article 12. “No one shall be subjected to…attacks upon his honour and reputation.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

[12] The Siracusa Principles on the Limitations and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights Principle 37. (1984)” (1985), 7 H.R.Q. 3.  The Siracusa Principles were adopted in May 1984 by a group of international human rights experts convened by the International Commission of Jurists, the International Association of Penal Law, the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists, the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights, and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences in Siracusa, Italy to consider the limitation and restriction provisions of the ICCPR.

[13] Declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and organs of society to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms. (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders) adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly December 1998.

[14] 376 U. S.254, 11L ed. 2^nd 686 (1964) [all subsequent cites to L ed}

[15] 379 US 64, 13L. ed 2d 125 (1964)

[16] Callum Kelly at page 7.

[17]  Raymond *l Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada, 2 Ed. Vol. 2, p. 13-183 to 13-191 (Carswell)

[19] Lange v. Atkinson [1998] 3 NZLR 424 (C.A.)

[20] Lange v. Atkinson [1997] 2 N.Z.L.R. 22 at 46.

[21] Callum Kelly at p. 15.

[22] Article 7.a Private Rights/Civil Defamation from [A Draft] Statement on Freedom of Expression Annexed to The Latimer House Guidelines for the Commonwealth adopted 19 June 1998 by A Joint Colloquium on “Parliamentary Supremacy and Judicial Independence…towards a Commonwealth Model” held at Latimer House in the United Kingdom 15-19 June 1998.  Over 60 participants attended representing 20 Commonwealth countries and 3 overseas territories.

[23] “Duncan and Neill on Defamation”, 2^nd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1983), at 21.

[24] Issued by consensus at the Heads of Government Meeting at Singapore.

[25]  Under the British Columbia Rules of Court, Rule 39(27) a party who has been served with a jury notice can apply to set aside the jury notice in all causes of action except for defamation, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. 

[26] Chan Wing Cheon and Andrew Phang, The Development of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice in Singapore, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies.

[27] Report of the select committee on the criminal procedure code (Amendment Bill, A7.)

[28] Supra at A 30.

[29] Re Laserworks Computer Services Inc. (1998) 37 B.L.R. (2d) 226 at 241.

[30] The Harare Declaration pledged Commonwealth members countries, including Singapore to work with renewed vigour for: “the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth: democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government”