Cayman Islands Court of Appeal quashes Sandra Hill’s conviction for harassment

In a judgment handed down on 29 May 2025, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal quashed journalist Sandra Hill’s conviction under s.90 of the Information and Communications Technology Act (2017 Revision). S.90 makes it an offence for any person to ‘knowingly [use] an ICT network or ICT service to defraud, abuse, annoy, threaten or harass any other person’. 

Sandra Hill was the broadcaster of a podcast from what was known as the Cayman Marl Road (“CMR”) website. The podcast was accessible to the public at large by following a link on the CMR website and associated platforms. Between February 2019 and February 2020, when the judge ordered it be taken down, there was available on the website what was described as a hard-hitting exposé. It lasted about an hour and concerned the complainant in the case, a man called Mathew Leslie. Mr Leslie had stood in two elections on a platform of transparency and trust. The podcast, which the judge found amounted to a character assassination of Mr Leslie, described him in terms of being a sexual predator and dishonest in his personal dealings. 

At trial, the judge ruled that the truth of what was said in the podcast was irrelevant, and stopped Ms Hill’s cross-examination of Mr Leslie to show the truth of her allegations. The judge directed himself that the prosecution were only required to prove that Ms Hill knowingly used an ICT network; and that Mr Leslie was as a matter of fact abused, annoyed, threatened or harassed by her use of the ICT network; and that Ms Hill either intended to abuse, annoy, threaten or harass Mr Leslie or was aware that this would be the likely result. Though he found that Section 11 of the Bill of Rights (guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression) was engaged, the judge nevertheless concluded that conviction of Ms Hill was necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the judge’s interpretation of s.90 was incorrect. Rejecting the prosecution’s submission that the common law alone was sufficient to correct any disregard of freedom of expression, the Court also held that it was the ‘express constitutional protection for the citizen to which the court should have regard rather than what might be thought to be the somewhat more opaque concept of the principle of legality.’ The Court proceeded by reference to the constitutional protections under section 11 rather than by reference to the common law. The Court went on to conclude that the potential truth of Ms Hill’s allegations should have been taken into account. Relevant too was her genuine belief in the truth of her allegations and the basis for that belief. For these reasons, Ms Hill’s appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. 

Edward Fitzgerald KC represented Ms Hill, leading Amelia Fosuhene of Brady Attorneys-at-Law. Percy Preston, pupil in chambers, researched the Article 10 and Section 11 issues and his contribution was recognised by the Court. 

The Judgment is available here.