Nigel Carty v Shawn K. Richards
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judge | Ventose, J. |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 2020 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2020] ECSC J0615-1 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. SKBHCV2016/0008 |
| Date | 15 June 2020 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CLAIM NO. SKBHCV2016/0008
Mrs. Angelina Gracy Sookoo-Bobb for the Claimant
Mr. Terrence Byron and Ms. Indira Butler for the Defendant
In ( R v Franklyn Huggins BVIHCR 2009/0001 dated 13 July 2010), Hariprashad-Charles J. stated (at [17]) that:
Short of homicide, it [rape] is the ‘ultimate violation of self’. It is a violent crime because it normally involves force, or the threat of force or intimidation to overcome the will and the capacity of the victim to resist. Along with other forms of sexual assault, it belongs to that class of indignities against the person that cannot ever be fully righted and that diminishes all humanity.
Rape is perhaps one of the most violent crimes that can be inflicted a woman. It is the violation of her person by another in a way that can only be described as barbaric. This case is about the use by a sitting member of the National Assembly of Saint Christopher and Nevis of a public forum on a campaign platform to state, without any evidence or justification whatsoever, that another sitting member of the National Assembly and a Minister of Government had raped a young woman in his office.
In Jagan v Burnham (1973) 20 WIR 96, the Court of Appeal of Guyana stated (at 110) that:
It can hardly be disputed that the public conduct of a public man might be discussed with the fullest freedom. It might be made the subject of hostile criticism and of hostile animadversions provided the language of the writer is kept within the limits of an honest intention to discharge a public duty and not as a means of promulgating defamatory and malicious accusations. … Whoever fills a public position renders himself open to public reference, and if any part of what he does is wrong, he must accept the attack as a necessary, though unpleasant, circumstance attaching to his position. …
But by the same token, if a false and unwarranted attack is maliciously levelled at an individual who holds high office, designed not only to discredit him, but to encourage disrespect for his office through allegations of disreputable conduct in that capacity, damages must be suitably assessed to be a sufficient demonstrative mark in the vindication of his reputation, clothed as it may be with the garb of that office.
The right to freedom of expression must be exercised reasonably and is subject to the protection of the reputations of others. There is no right to tell untruths on a political platform simply to score political points. It goes without saying that there must be full discussion of the conduct of anyone who enters the public political domain. The public is entitled to know everything about that person who aspires to become, or is, a member of the National Assembly. However hostile the criticism of the public political figure, it must be kept within “limits of an honest intention to discharge a public duty and not as a means of promulgating defamatory and malicious accusations”.
The award of damages in defamation cases is a matter of impression and common sense. Any award granted by the court must seek to vindicate the reputation of the person defamed. Too often some politicians in the Commonwealth Caribbean, comprising many small-island states, use the political platform not to provide the electorate with an articulation of their plans, economic or social, to develop the State or Territory if they are elected into office as the government but to make defamatory statements about the persons against whom they are running in any particular constituency or otherwise. This is not what our nascent democracies are about and the use of the political platform as a tool to make defamatory statements against political opponents must cease. If it does not, the law of defamation stands as the sentinel to guard against those who use the freedom to speak one's mind as means to communicate false statements defamatory of others.
Commonwealth Caribbean societies as just mentioned comprise many small island nations, including the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis with a population of approximately 55,000 inhabitants. When scandalous, heinous and false statements are made against persons, in particular, to those who put themselves up for political office, the damage to reputation is sometimes complete. It lingers on for years, even decades. It is, therefore, no surprise that many law-abiding citizens do not wish to seek political office to serve their country. The Court of Appeal in Gonsalves stated (at [60]) that:
… A politician depends very much on the popular perception of his or her reputation. Damage to it can lead to diminished political advancement within support groups. It can lead to political demise. … Damages must be presumed, since the slanderous [defamatory] allegation involved the commission of a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment. Those who have high and distinguished profiles as Dr. Gonsalves should receive a higher award than a person similarly defamed with a lesser public profile. These are well settled principles. …
To borrow the language of Jagan, the Defendant in the instant case made a false and unwarranted attack that was maliciously levelled at the Claimant who held high office, designed not only to discredit him, but to encourage disrespect for his office through allegations of disreputable conduct (including rape) in that capacity. This means that damages must be suitably assessed to be a sufficient demonstrative mark in the vindication of the Claimant's reputation.
In 2010, the Claimant was Senator in the National Assembly of Saint Christopher and Nevis and a Junior Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Sustainable Development, Information and Technology. At that time, the Saint Kitts and Nevis Labour Party (the “ Labour Party”) formed the government. The Claimant also subsequently held the posts of Minister with responsibility for Education and Information, Agriculture, Marine Resources and Cooperatives.
The Claimant gave evidence that he enjoyed a sterling reputation of integrity and respect from colleagues, associates and subordinates in the various Ministries in which he served and the general public. The Claimant avers that he has always been a law-abiding citizen with an unblemished character that enabled him to be eligible for the various senatorial and ministerial appointments he held; and that his character also allowed him to retain the trust and confidence of the then Prime Minister of Saint Christopher and Nevis.
The Defendant, Mr. Shawn K. Richards, is currently the Deputy Prime Minister of Saint Christopher and Nevis and an elected Member of Government in the National Assembly of Saint Christopher and Nevis. He is a member of the Cabinet and the Leader of the political party named the People's Action Movement (the “ PAM”). However, on the 13 and 16 January 2010, the Defendant was an elected Opposition Member for PAM in the National Assembly. In January 2010, the Labour Party and PAM were engaged in political campaigning for general Elections soon to be held in Saint Christopher and Nevis. On the 13 January 2010 at a public meeting of PAM held at Trafalgar, Basseterre, Saint Christopher, the Defendant stated the following:
“Members and friends I am not surprised that Labour doesn't care about the crime situation in this country and they mustn't care because they themselves are a bunch of criminals – they are a bunch of criminals. Chesley refer to the fact that we have something here coming out of the red briefcase. Well the last file that I had had named Marcella Liburd. This file name Nigel Carty. That's the name ah this file. And after tonight allyo better watch me back enuh because you know right now they desperate. But tell them they say when dey coming must come good because I hear they done planning to pull it and to kill PAM candidates but tell them that how when they coming come good.
I turn to the file and the file here say affidavit of truth affidavit of truth and I won't call the name of the young lady but I will read to you what the affidavit says and tell Nigel Carty is not me say so is an affidavit that the young lady swore took an oath to in this country not me a tell no lie pon him. It says ‘I’ and it gives the name of the young lady and it says where she live in the island of St. Christopher in the Federation of St. Christopher and Nevis 'make oath and say as follows. I am a citizen of Saint Christopher and Nevis of full age having been born in February of 1987. I was sexually assaulted and it gives the date which would be in June of 2008 at the office of minister Nigel Carty a Junior Minister in the government of Saint Christopher and Nevis. I did not give Nigel Carty permission to have sex with me. During the month of April 2008 I spoke to Minister Nigel Carty about helping me get a job because I did not like my present job. He also said to me that he would help me. At present I work and she gives where she is working. ‘During the morning of the incident I called Minister Nigel Carty. He told me to come to his office during my lunch. I went to his officewith my friend’ and she gives the name of the friend. 'She had to stay downstairs and I went up to his office. When I got to his office I sat in a chair and he was behind his desk. He did not welcome me. He just said to me “Girl when was the last time you had sex?” I was shocked and I did not answer him. He got up from his desk and went to sit on the said of the desk next to me. He started to watch me full in my face and I said to him “Why you watching me that way?” He then started to touch me up on my hands and then he pulled me up from out of the chair. I said to him “What are you doing?” He said to me “I am...
To continue reading
Request your trial