Bryant v Democrat Printing Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 31 October 1989
• Neutral Citation: KN 1989 HC 3
• Docket Number: No. 107 of 1981
• Date: 31 October 1989

High Court

Williams, J.

No. 107 of 1981

Bryant

and

Democrat Printing Company Limited

Appearances:

Lee Moore and Henry Browne for the plaintiff

Terence Byron and S. Butler for the defendants

Damages - Defamation — Libel — Whether words published in newspaper were understood to mean that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and were intended to disparage the plaintiff in his possession — Article recounting how plaintiff had knocked down a child — Finding that as a matter of law the acts and conduct imputed to the plaintiff did not amount to a crime punishable with imprisonment — Claim dismissed.

Williams, J.

1 By writ of summons and statement of claim filed can the 5th November, 1981 the plaintiff claimed damages for libel against the defendants and an injunction to restrain the defendants from further publishing and printing the said or any similar words defamatory of the plaintiff. Appearance was entered by the defendants on 16th November, 1981 and a defence was filed on the 12 ^th March, 1982. The plaintiff is a Barrister-at-Law, a politician, a former school teacher, a former Minister of Government and Chairman of the Labour Party. The defendants are a limited liability company and publishers of the newspaper known as “The Democrat”. In an issue of “The Democrat” newspaper dated the 24th day of October, 1981 at page 10 under the heading “BRYANT SHOULD REMEMBER” the defendants published and printed the following words concerning the plaintiff:–

“Not so long ago Bryant himself knocked down a five (5) year old lad from Sandy Point when he Bryant was dashing through Sandy Point in his red car. The little fellow was unconscious for over two weeks. It was the first-time in St. Kitts someone was in a coma for so long and lived. Up to now, when Bryant is rejoicing over the little mishap on Sunday, which only caused minor bruising, the 5 year old knocked down by Bryant in Sandy Point is still unable to function as a normal child, due to the amount of brain damage he suffered. The surgeon at that time told the lad's parents that they should not hope for much. When this information was relayed to Bryant he rushed to the surgeon asking him to do his best to keep the little boy alive. Bryant's mother and the rest of his family were regular visitors to the children's Ward while the child lay unconscious. Bryant and his family openly went because they were surely the boy was going to die and Bryant could have been charged with, causing death by dangerous driving”.

2 The plaintiff contended that by the said words the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment and further that the said words were published by the defendants of the plaintiff falsely and maliciously to disparage the plaintiff in his profession. The defendants in their defence admitted publication of the words complained of but contended that the said words were not defamatory of the plaintiff. That they did not bore or were reasonably understood to bear or are reasonably capable of bearing the meaning alleged, that is to say, that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.

3 On 5 ^th March, 1987 application was made to court on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim and leave was accordingly granted. Leave was also granted to the defendants to amend their defence in response if necessary. On the 11 ^th March, 1987 an amended statement of claim was filed in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants published the said words out of malevolence or spite towards the plaintiff and claimed aggravated and exemplary damages. The plaintiff also claimed that he was disparaged in his office.

4 On 18th March, 1987 an amended defence was filed and the defence of qualified privilege was raised. The offending article is with respect to a letter send to the editor of “The Democrat” newspaper purported to be from a “Villager from Boyds” which was published on the back page of the said newspaper on the 24th day of October, 1981. The plaintiff says he was upset when he read the said publication. A series of articles which were published in “The Democrat” newspaper under the caption “Bryant is a Jackass” were tendered in evidence to support the plaintiff's allegation of express malice towards him by the defendants. In addition the plaintiff called two witnesses in support of his case. These two witnesses seemed to me to have been straining at the bit to try and make out the words published in the article had upon them in so far as it related to the plaintiff's reputation, and how they thought of the plaintiff after reading the said publication.

5 The plaintiff denied that he wrote the article in “The Labour Spokesman” of the 21st October, 1981 concerning Michael Powell knocking down a youth at Boyds Village. A number of witnesses were called on behalf of the defendants but I must confess that I have had some difficulty in seeing the relevance of same of the evidence given by some of those witnesses. It was submitted by counsel for the defendants that the words in the article complained of do not convey the meaning which the plaintiff seeks to place upon them and that they do not impute to the plaintiff the committal of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. Counsel further submitted that the words could not relate to the plaintiff's profession or office.

6 Mr. Byron argued that even if the court were to find that the words were capable of a defamatory meaning which is denied, then the defence of qualified privilege is made out. Counsel contended that there is no evidence whatsoever that the words were published out of malevolence or spite and that the plaintiff has not made out any ground for exemplary damages as claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in determining whether the publication is in fact defamatory of the plaintiff there is a two tier inquiry:–

• (1) An inquiry by the judge as to whether the words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning that is a matter of law; and

• (2) If the judge rules that they are, the next stage is an inquiry by the jury as to whether the publication as a matter of fact is defamatory and that depends on the evidence.

7 Counsel argued that an ordinary reading of the words in the offending article imputes against the plaintiff in this action a criminal offence — namely dangerous driving. That a natural reading of paragraph 5 of the offending article imports the condition that if the boy had died Bryant could have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving. That the natural and ordinary interpretation of that leads inexorably to the conclusion that the only element absent to make him chargeable with the offence of causing death by dangerous driving is the death. That it therefore follows that there is an imputation that the plaintiff was chargeable with the offence of dangerous driving.

8 Counsel referred to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance Chapter 270 sections 52(1), 53A. (1); 53A.(2) and 52(1)(b). Counsel contended that the passage “when he Bryant was dashing through Sandy Point in his red car”, that, that phrase connotes in its ordinary and natural meaning the idea of driving through Sandy Point, that is, a built up town at a...