A man removed from a ZJB Radio show for sharing his views on the medicinal benefits of marijuana has had his freedom of expression case quashed after a string of appeals.
Montserratian agricultural economist Claude Gerald argued that being barred from speaking on the topic on the government-run station violated his constitutional rights.
However, a series of courts disagreed.
Gerald first took the constitutional motion to Montserrat High Court in April 2015, where he sought declaratory relief and damages, but acting judge Albert Redhead dismissed the case.
It was dismissed again by the Court of Appeal in November 2017.
In June 2019, the Court of Appeal granted Gerald permission to bring the case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which heard evidence on 9 May, this year.
However, in its judgment on 18 September, the council advised King Charles II to reject his final appeal, as it agreed with the lower courts that there was no violation of his constitutional rights.
Freedom of expression
The judgment explained that Gerald was an in-studio guest on the independently run Warren Cassell Show on ZJB Radio on 29 January, 2014.
The live discussion was on health issues and the use of marijuana.
Station manager Herman Sergeant, responsible for approving programmes and content, had not considered or approved the programme before broadcast.
He formed the view that Gerald was promoting the use of marijuana, the possession or supply of which is illegal in Montserrat.
Sergeant directed Cassell to stop the discussion immediately and as a result, he terminated the interview.
On 15 September, 2014, Gerald brought constitutional proceedings against Sergeant alleging that his right to freedom of expression had been infringed.
He joined the attorney general as a second respondent.
‘Unlawful interference’
In an affidavit filed in support of the originating motion, Gerald stated that he holds the opinion that “marijuana has tremendous medicinal properties”.
He explained that he champions natural health issues and his article ‘Cannabis and coconut oil in a capsule: A Medical Miracle?’ was the foundation for the debut discussion on the radio show.
However, after expressing his views on marijuana on the programme, any meaningful and substantive further participation was immediately terminated.
This, he maintained, was an unlawful interference with his right to freedom of expression and said such interference was not reasonably justified in a democratic society.
He was later invited back to the show to talk about the benefits of aloe vera, but Sergeant again terminated that discussion.
Discussion stopped
In an affidavit in response, Sergeant said that prior to approving programmes and programme content, the station manager is expected to evaluate them.
He said this is to ensure the content’s integrity, that it is kept within the station’s guidelines, and that there is nothing contrary to the law, or against ethical and industry standards.
On the day in question, Sergeant said he was listening to the broadcast of the show when he heard Gerald being introduced as a features’ presenter on a new weekly segment.
As he listened to the programme, the discussion moved to the topic of marijuana, and “appeared to me, to be promoting the use of marijuana in all of its forms,” he said.
Sergeant said as a government station, ZJB Radio should not be seen to be supporting or promoting the use of marijuana, which is illegal in Montserrat.
“I decided that, in the best interest of everyone I should stop the discussion on this topic…,” he said.
No infringement
According to the Privy Council, during his radio appearance Gerald had embarked on a general account of the virtues of marijuana.
He claimed the drug had been demonised by politicians and legislators and expressed views it could save the world, the judgment said.
There is ample evidence that he was extolling the virtues of marijuana and supporting and promoting its use generally, the council said.
“Mr Gerald had been afforded a limited platform to speak on the medical uses of marijuana and had clearly exceeded that permission,” the judgment continued.
“Faced with this situation, the controller was entitled to take immediate action to end the broadcast.”
The council concluded that the decision to terminate the broadcast interview could not be considered discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable.
It said the constitution was not engaged and that provides a complete answer to Gerald’s complaint of infringement of his rights.
