The 19-minute leak… President: Recording of a private conversation was ‘illegal’

Looks like Lall will be facing more charges as he implodes.

He is getting closer to his jail cell.

What law in Guyana states that this is illegal

Let's wait this out and see who is correct. If the AG is wrong, then he is a dunce. Hope the Chief Justice(ag) can handle this expeditiously.

Good point.

The President needs to make specific reference to sections of the laws that were violated.

I am certain that it will be provided.

Exactly.

Skelly, it is also important to remember that is is quite unethical for a newspaper to record a PRIVATE conservation without consent. 

Lall is also recording the private conversations of this employees. This is beyond belief and quite unacceptable and remember that he fired this reporter for "arguing with him"

The law is closing in on this desperate man who is actin as if he is above the laws of Guyana. 

The PPP clearly dodges making any reference to the laws that were violated and the low breed dem cannot backup the statements by pointing to any specific law because non exist.

What the low breed dem doing is exactly what they are programmed to do by the PPP which is to be subservient and lick as much shit from the batty of Nandalalla et al.

The bottom line here is that the PPP is grasping at straws, they have been for some time now. They are using sections of the law conveniently to oppress and persecute their critics and opponents while they themselves and their relatives can steal from tax payers admit it on tape and there are no consequences.

Anil was so bold that he declared to all the low breeds that he can steal from tax payers and its ok because we must tek e word for it he pay it back.

Where is your right to privavcy? Is Lall a dictator who does whatever he wants? Did Lall violate the reporter's right to a private conversation?

Most countries law states, if one person involved with a recording is aware of the recorded, it is legal.

But Guyana is not most countries, where a verbal law is made to suit the situation.   

Shelly how come the PPP all of a sudden now concern about rights to privacy?

If you so concerned about rights to privacy why hasn't sattaur been sacked for giving Jagdeo private tax and financial information from a citizen to his corrupt ass?

Additionally, if you are so concerned about privacy why did CIOG take NBS documents to CIOG which is illegal mind you not this bullshit nonsense laws yawl mekkin up that you cannot point to.

Taking NBS documents to CIOG to discuss them is illegal but again Jagdeo at the center of that mess did that to take down Maurice arjoon in typical low breed fashion.

Haas manure, you mumble the same thing like a mad man. Canje mad house has a few vacancies left. As a kid growing up people joked that you geat a loaf of bread and a shirt if you commit a mad man. I would turn you in for free. Forget the bread and shirt.

Nandlall of 2006 vs Nandlall of 2014

Before he became Attorney General, Anil Nandlall wrote a letter to the press on the recorded telephone conversation that made its way to the media and was broadcast featuring a sitting Police Commissioner and an Opposition Member of Parliament.

Mr Nandlall was clear in his letter that "I respectfully submit that, even if the law afforded a right to privacy in Guyana, having regard to the nature of the matters contained in the recorded conversation, and the status and standing of the persons allegedly engaged in that conversation, that right to privacy would have had to bend and bow to the constitutional right to free expression."

SEE HIS FULL LETTER TO THE PRESS BELOW
"There is no right to privacy known to the laws of Guyana

Dear Editor, 
A recorded conversation believed to be between the Commissioner of Police, Mr. Winston Felix and PNCR Vice Chairman and Parliamentarian Mr. Basil Williams, was aired and published in several sections of the media. Because of its startling and disturbing content, this recorded conversation eventuated much public debate, concern and even outrage.

The Government's response was in the form of a statement, the content of which is simply baffling to the rational mind. One can only hope that a response of greater cognition shall be soon forthcoming.

The PNCR response was more expansive and it came in the form of a press conference. Like the Government, the PNCR refused to deal with the content of the conversation, but rather concentrated their energies and emphasis on its source and manner of acquisition. They contended, inter alia, that the taping of the conversation and its broadcast were ‘illegal', and that it constitutes an invasion of privacy, arguing with credulity that the conversation was a private conversation; as if that makes a difference!

The ‘illegality' of which the PNCR spoke was neither explained nor elaborated. One would have expected that the rule or principle of law that was allegedly breached or the offence which was allegedly committed would have been identified. Unfortunately this was not done. It was argued that the taping of the conversation and its broadcast constitute an invasion of privacy. 
I respectfully submit that there is no right to privacy known to the laws of Guyana or even the common law of England from whence we received our laws. The following passage of great relevance appears in the well known and respected text, Gatley on Libel and Slander, 9th edition at page 514.

“There is no doubt that the English common law does not recognise a tort of invasion of privacy and does not therefore grant any direct action for such invasion”. The identical position obtains in Guyana.

In the English case Waynright and another -v-Home office (2004) 4 L. R. C. page 154, the House of Lords held inter alia that there was no common law tort of invasion of privacy. A similar position was arrived at by the House of Lords in Malone -v-Commission of Police [1979] 2 ALLER page 620 and by the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) in Kaye -v- Robertson [1991] FSR 62. The issue of right to privacy arose in New Zealand, a common law jurisdiction like Guyana, in the case of Hosking et al -v- Runting et al 2004 2 LRC page 65, where a magazine wanted to publish the photographs of two infant children taken out in a public place without the parents' permission. The parents sued, claiming that the taking of the photographs and/or their publication without consent amounted to a breach of their children's right of privacy.

The High Court of New Zealand held that New Zealand law did not recognise a tortuous cause of action in privacy based on publication of photographs taken in a public place.

Based on the aforesaid authorities, it is clear that the right to privacy is not known to the common law and, as stated above, not known to the laws of Guyana. The argument in respect of the breach of a right to privacy is therefore woefully misconceived. It is clear that the matters contained in the recorded conversation are matters of high public interest; they raise issues which touch and concern the internal security of Guyana; and they bring into question the conduct of Guyana's premier law enforcement officer. It is respectfully submitted that this is information of which the public has a constitutional right to be apprised and which the media has commitment right and duty to disseminate.

In Hosking -v- Runting, (supra) the court made the following seminal observations: 
“the importance of freedom of expression and the role of the media in a democratic society needs no emphasis. There is a strong public interest not only in the right to impart information, but also in the corresponding right of the public to receive it. Any limitations imposed upon freedom of expression, whether by statute or by development of the common law, should reflect established principles. If there was any right to privacy of the kind alleged, the court would have found it to be clearly overwhelmed by the right of freedom of expression.......” 
I respectfully submit that, even if the law afforded a right to privacy in Guyana, having regard to the nature of the matters contained in the recorded conversation, and the status and standing of the persons allegedly engaged in that conversation, that right to privacy would have had to bend and bow to the constitutional right to free expression.

This has been submitted so that the lay public is not misled on vital matters of law.

Attorney-at-law Mohabir Anil Nandlall
(Kaieteur News, 03/23/ 06)"

HAHAHA  Me nah no lawyer(LIAR) but meh tellAl Yuh dat man is committing a crime and has no respect for the Laws of Guyana.

HAHAHA  And Mr Lall made it his duty to tell the World his Newspaper tapes evry CALL. HAHAHA Laad Ah Mercy, Hey Bhagwan, give me FAITH.

ATTENTION: yuji22

Donald Ramotar is not a lawyer. Anil Nandalall is Guyana's lawyer-in chief. Please read Nandalall's own words above. Talk about invasion of privacy and illegality after that.

The sh...t hit the fan they are confused,they can't decipher

what is legal or illegal,holding public office you have to be

careful what you say using voice technology.

abee Kshatriya warria and mafiya consigliere blowing plenty smoke

lol

Just as expected. I stumped another low breed! yay!!! 

Taping of a conversation that involves blackmail and death threats is not illegal. What is is, is a cover up by the PPP regime. When the regime is threatening to murder opposition leaders, and the president is more worried about the legality of the recorded threats rather than the proclamation of murder by agents of the president, then we have a constitutional crisis. Time for each citizen to arm himself and be prepared for the worst.

And I thought only reading and understanding was your problem BUT now is also hearing and understanding. Walmart gat hearing Aids cheap, cheap.

Nehru yuh a low breed, Anil seh suh.

How about the dollar store.

Me can breed you, or anyone badee else.

DEm gat too.

rale antiman runnings by nehru, buggerman fuh hire

i guess kwamee gon have baby fuh he soon . . . smh

TK Bhai, yuh gat all Apple Products. YUh wan lucky Gal, Tim Cook seh he married yuh.

You can too if you come bend over leh Uncle Nehru mek you see weh Barley ah grow. Oh Laad he will love dat.

i rest my case

!9 minutes inside the mind of the PPP and there is nothing there but pure vile hellish landscape.

The President and his men and women can close ranks behind the AG but that will not allay what we now know. He is a sexist, he appeals to caste ( and by extension to race) he is obscene, he treats the nation as his bank, he sees no harm in a quid pro quo to with a newspaper for its silence and we see that he treats violence casually if he knows his uncle is brutal man and that very brutal homicidal man is under his roof and he is out here trying to pimp a sister for him.

All the President does is to expose the naked underbelly of the PPP. They by standing up for these things become complicity with all the evil exposed in these 19 minutes probing of the mind of our highest law official.

See not so bad to come out of the closet. Do you feel liberated???

so exactly what law is broken? Stop skinnin yuh teeth like yuh crazy and pay attention

Ray, Again I am no Attorney BUT if there is any Country in this World that make legal the recording of all it's employees I would be more than surprise.

so, wha happen back in 2006 wid Anil?

Check for the relevant law.

In the US_of_A, Canada, Britain, etc., a reporter MUST inform the individual and gain consent BEFORE recording a conversation.

You talking pure fart. The law differs from state to state in the US and in most states only one party to the call has to be aware that it's being recorded.

wet diaper banna, u have absolutely no idea what u are talking about . . . rite?

A nd you do DUMMY????

I dealt with them enough times to know they don't tell you a damn thing and record everything. At every encounter with a reporter one should be wise to think they are recording and warn them you are speaking to them off the record so they cannot cite you. 

They have coverage in the fact they can say they were doing investigative work. In the US anyone can record anyone if that person feels they are being harassed, will be threatened or are in fear of their life. Lall definitely have coverage here if the new laws are like the US.