Payne v Powell

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 August 1977
• Neutral Citation: KN 1977 HC 6
• Docket Number: No. 22 of 1977
• Date: 12 August 1977

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 22 of 1977

Payne

and

Powell

Appearances:

Mr. F.C. Bryant et a for the plaintiff

Dr W.V Herbert et al for the defendant

Libel and slander - Slander. Whether the defendant at a public meeting falsely and maliciously spoke words to the effect that the minister was misappropriating sums of money. Finding that the statements were made and that they did not constitute fair comment. Judgment given for the plaintiff.

Facts: The plaintiff a cabinet minister claimed damages against the defendant for slander

Glasgow, J.

1 This is an action for damages for slander brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff is, and has to the defendant's knowledge been, since May, 1971, a Cabinet Minister in the Government of the State of Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, with inter alia, responsibility for the subjects of Agriculture, Housing and Labour. He resides at Bird Rock in the Parish of St. George in the Island of St. Christopher. The defendant is a businessman carrying on business at the corner of Cayon Street and Market Street in the Town of Basseterre in the said Island.

2 It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim that on the 27th day of February, 1977, at a public meeting at Pall Mall square in the Town of Basseterre aforesaid, the defendant through the medium of a public address system falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and' concerning the plaintiff the following words:

“The Ministers are looking after themselves, lining their pockets and fattening themselves, and not concerned about the people in the country. You all know wha' happen in Antigua. We been telling you about corruption on this platform for a long time. Want to know what are they Ministers in Antigua charged with? They are charged with using public funds for their own personal benefit. You understand? Now, Good God, brothers and sisters, you seen any example in St. Kitts of Government Ministers using public funds for their own personal benefit? I remember Mr. Caines, Richard Caines, stood up on a platform and he mentioned that St. John Payne was building a house at Bird Rock and he mentioned about certain materials and Government truck and all the rest of it. An I said to myself, ‘Well, boy, I said’ I sat there and I was frightened because I say, ‘Well, boy, St. John Payne goin’ tek everything Caines got. “But St. John Payne ain't touch that. He ain't touch it with a 10 foot pole. You know why? Because Caines was right. Caines was right! And if Caines hadn't checked his facts he would never have made a broad statement like that. So when he was talking he knew what he was talking about. And they couldn't they ain't mention nothing about it. But these people in Antigua are charged, again let me remind you, with using public funds for their own private purposes.”

3 At paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim the plaintiff alleges that the said words were published to Wilson Blondel of Burdon Street in the Town of Basseterre aforesaid, engineer, and Warrington Chapman of Police Headquarters in the Town of Basseterre aforesaid, police constable, and various other persons known and unknown to the plaintiff, and were calculated to disparage the plaintiff in his profession and office as aforesaid.

4 The plaintiff alleges at paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim that by the said words the defendant meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.

5 At paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim the plaintiff alleges that he has in consequence of the said words been gravely injured in hid character, credit and reputation and in his profession and office as a Minister of Government and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt.

6 The plaintiff claims, in addition to damages, an injunction to restrain the defendant from further publishing the said or any similar words defamatory of the plaintiff.

The Statement of Defence, as originally pleaded, reads as follows:

“DEFENCE

1

The Defendant admits paragraph one (1) of the Statement of Claim. 2. The Defendant does not admit the use of all the words alleged in paragraph two (2). 3. The defendant denies that the words alleged bore or were understood to bear or are capable of bearing any meaning defamatory to the Plaintiff. 4. In so far as the said words consist of statements of fact they are true in substance and in fact and in so far as the said words consist of expressions of opinion they are fair comment made without malice on the said facts which are a matter of Public interest.”

7 The plaintiff served a reply on the defendant.

8 Before the first witness was called for the plaintiff, counsel for the defendant applied for leave to amend the defence by adding the following Particulars at the end of paragraph 4 thereof: –

“PARTICULARS

1

The following words are statements of fact: (a) ‘Want to know what are these Ministers in Antigua charged with? They are charged with using public funds for their own personal benefit.’ (b) ‘I remember Mr. Caines, Richard Caines, stood up on the platform and he mentioned that St. John Payne was building a house at Bird Rock and he mentioned about certain materials and Government trucks and all the rest of it.’

2

The facts and matters relied on in support of the allegation that the words set out in (1) above are true are as follows (a) Ministers of Government in Antigua were charged with using public funds for their own benefit. (b) Mr. Caines did say that St. John Payne was building a house at Bird Rock and Government trucks took materials there.”

9 Counsel for the plaintiff objected to the application on the ground that it was out of time. Counsel for the plaintiff cited Gatley on Libel and Slander (7th Edition) pages 445 and 446 and stated that an obligation rested on the defendant to show cause why the application should be granted at such a late stage. After hearing an objection in limine made by counsel for the plaintiff and after hearing counsel for the defendant, I allowed the amendment sought by counsel for the defendant and intimated that the hearing would be adjourned if counsel for the plaintiff so desired.

10 Counsel for the plaintiff requested an adjournment until the following day. This request was granted.

11 Three witnesses were called on behalf of the plaintiff, and two witnesses, including the defendant, testified on behalf of the defendant. The following are the facts, as I find them: On the night of the 27th February, 1977 Police Constable Warrington Chapman of the Royal St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla Police Force was on duty at Pall Mall Square in the Town of Basseterre, having been specifically sent there by the Commissioner of Police to tape-record a political meeting. All political meetings are tape-recorded by the Police and P. C. Chapman had prior to the 27th February 1977, tape-recorded a political meeting. It is normal practice for two officers to go to tape-record a meeting and the night of the 27th February, 1977 was no exception. Before going to the meeting, P. C. Chapman checked the portable tape-recorder which he was to use that night. He also checked the batteries, the tape, the reel, the microphone and the lead. He then checked to satisfy himself that the tape-recorder was recording. He found that it was. The meeting was due to start at 8 p.m. P. C. Chapman and another police constable arrived at Pall Mall Square at about 7.45 p.m. in a police car. P. C. Chapman stopped the car on the western side of East Square Street facing North, near the entrance to the Court yard. The People's Action Movement, a political party in opposition to the Government, was having the meeting at Pall Mall Square that night. When P. C. Chapman stopped the car, preparations were being made to hold the meeting. There was a platform at the corner of South Square Street and Adlam Street near the entrance to Dr. Herbert's Office, and there was a raised microphone on the platform. There was a public address system complete with loudspeakers. One loudspeaker was on the sidewalk on the southern side of South Square Street in front of a building described by P. C. Chapman as the temporary museum. P. C. Chapman could see both the loudspeaker and the microphone from his position where the Police car was parked. He saw that tape-recorder was in a settled position on the back seat of the car. He u the other constable put the microphone on the western rear door of the car. The glass of that window was turned down. P. C. Chapman made all necessary preparations for tape-recording. He sat on the back seat of the car. Music started coming through the public address system at about 7.55 p.m. To see whether the tape-recorder was working, P. C. Chapman taped parts of the music and replayed what he had taped. He then erased the music and put the reel at the starting position. At about 8.30 p.m. the music stopped. Dr. Simmonds got up and went up to the raised microphone on the platform. P. C. Chapman switched on the tape-recorder by switching on the main switch then depressing the starting button and the recording button. An indicating needle on the recorder showed that the tape-recorder was recording satisfactorily. P. C. Chapman saw Dr. Simmonds speaking aid heard him clearly. Dr. Simmonds introduced as first speaker Mr. Washington Archibald. Mr. Archibald spoke from the platform in front of the microphone. P. C. Chapman saw and heard him. Mr. Archibald spoke for about half an hour. His speech, like that of Dr. Simmonds, was tape-recorded by P. C....