Fitzroy C. Bryant Appellant v The Democrat Printing Company Ltd Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: MOE, J.A.,Chief Justice
• Judgment Date: 02 October 1990
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1990] ECSC J1002-1
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3 of 1989
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 02 October 1990

[1990] ECSC J1002-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable Sir Lascelles Robotham — Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Moe

The Honourable Mr. Justice Byron (Acting)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3 of 1989

Between:

Fitzroy C. Bryant

Appellant

and

The Democrat Printing CO. LTD.

Respondent

Appearances:

Lee Moore and Dr. Henry Browne for the Appellant

Terrence Byron for the Respondent

MOE, J.A.

1 This appeal is against the decision of the trial Judge dismissing the appellant's claim against the respondent for damages for an article in the newspaper "The Democrat" dated 24th October, 1981.

"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 bruises, 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 sure the boy was going to die and Bryant could have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving."

The words complained of read as follows:—

2 The Statement of Claim averred inter alia that by the said words the respondent meant and was understood to mean that the appellant had committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. The respondent denied that the words were reasonably understood to bear or reasonably capable of that meaning or any other meaning defamatory of the appellant.

3 Before the trial Judge it was argued for the appellant that there was an imputation in the article that the appellant was chargeable with the offence of dangerous driving and reference was made to sections 52( 1) and 53A( 1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance Cap. 270. These sections provide as follows:—

"Any person who drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, shall be liable—

• (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding One thousand dollars or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding four months, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction either to a fine not exceeding four thousand dollars or to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and imprisonment;

• (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or both such imprisonment and fine."

"Any person who causes the death of another person by the driving of a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the road and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be on the road shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for five years."

"If upon the trial of a person for an offence against this section the jury are not satisfied that his driving was the cause of the...