Chairman of Law Reform Commission Defends Cybercrime Bill Against Critics in Barbados

Sir David Simmons, chairman of the Law Reform Commission, took on critics of the contentious Cybercrime Bill on Monday, including his former personal assistant, the outspoken Caswell Franklyn, and a slew of so-called social media influencers.

In dismissing their main criticism that the bill blocked freedom of speech or breached their constitutional rights, Sir David, a former chief justice and attorney general, said Barbadians were free to transmit data as long as it did not defame others or cause any of the distresses listed in the bill.

It was the Law Reform Commission which made the recommendations for the bill that attracted much public outcry and ended up in the Senate before the Joint Select Committee, chaired by Member of Parliament Edmund Hinkson, for further examination and to probe the criticisms.

Sir David cited two instances in which he was affected by the misuse of the computer, one involving pornographic material when someone sent him an advertisement for an oral sex competition in St Philip.

“I am not going to play this one because it is so disgusting . . . . I had to report this to the police . . . and the nastiness was displayed large for everybody to see. I was so disgusted I sent it to an ASP (assistant superintendent of police) to follow it up,” he said, while advising citizens to do likewise if they were offended.

In the other instance, he was “dragged” into the recent Digicel cell tower saga at Holders Hill, St James, when someone posted that head of Digicel, Natalie Abrahams, was his daughter (which was not true) and that was followed by the word “corruption”.

That was published on a computer system recklessly as the people did not care whether what they said was true, he said.

“That is the kind of thing this legislation deals with. If you tell me this is bad legislation because it protects people’s reputation from viciousness, then I disagree with you.

“The law is there to rein in some of this conduct and some of this behaviour . . . without trampling on the rights to free speech. You can speak freely but that does not mean you have the right to curse somebody beyond their burial ground by telling a bunch of lies on them,” Sir David said.

The proposed legislation did not, he added, contain any offence of strict liability and every offence contained proof of mens rea, meaning people intentionally or recklessly engaging in the listed activities and not something done in error.