The Tribune

By JADE RUSSELL

Tribune Staff Reporter

jrussell@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal affirmed former Contractors Registrar Omar Archer’s intentional libel conviction for alleging that a woman had HIV/AIDS and was spreading it.

However, the court altered his punishment. In partially allowing his appeal, the court substituted the magistrate’s three-month sentence with a 14-day sentence, which Mr Archer already served on remand.

The court ruled that Mr Archer must instead pay $5,000 by May 17 or spend three months in prison. He must also pay $3k compensatory damages to the complainant by July 22, 2024, or face one month in jail.

Magistrate Derence Rolle-Davis convicted Mr Archer of intentional libel on November 2, 2022 and sentenced him to three months in prison.

Mr Archer made the defamatory comments about the complainant between April 16 and 23, 2015. The complainant testified that Mr Archer also claimed she killed a baby and put it in a bucket. She said people commented on the posts and belittled her character.

The Court of Appeal wrote: “The appellant’s argument that there was no evidence presented to the magistrate proving the publication of a defamatory post about the complainant having AIDS is without merit. The complainant’s testimony as well as that of her two witnesses and the documentary exhibits support the magistrate’s finding that the appellant publicly posted the statement “YOU HAVE AIDS AND YOU ARE SPREADING IT.”

“Without any evidence from the appellant or any witnesses called on his behalf, the magistrate was justified in finding the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt once the legal requirements for intentional libel were met. A reasonable reader would interpret the false statement about the complainant having AIDS and spreading it as inherently defamatory, regardless of any preceding private exchange between the parties. Given the evidence presented at trial, the magistrate’s guilty verdict was reasonable and supported by the facts. There are no grounds to overturn the conviction.

“However, the magistrate did not give a detailed sentencing ruling. The magistrate’s ruling, which lacked a comprehensive explanation for imposing a custodial sentence of three months, failed to consider relevant sentencing factors and any comparators by which the court could measure the severity or otherwise of the sentence.”