Simmonds v France et Al

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Singh, J.,Hanschell J.
• Judgment Date: 07 May 1985
• Neutral Citation: KN 1985 HC 1
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 34 of 1984
• Date: 07 May 1985

High Court of Justice.

Singh, J.

Civil Suit No. 34 of 1984

Simmonds

and

France et al

Appearances

Mr. Carl Hudson Phillips, Q.C., Mr. Terrence Byron and Miss Constance Mitcham with him for the plaintiff

Mr. Fitzroy Bryant up to a point and then Mr. Henry Browne for the No. 1 defendant

Mr. Lee Moore and up to a point — Mr. Henry with him for the No.2 defendant

Defamation - Libel —Newspaper article — Allegation by plaintiff that words were published falsely and maliciously of him in the way of his office and in relation to his conduct and as a result he had been seriously injured in his character, credit and reputation and in the way of his office and had been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt — Whether article had wide publication —Evidence showed that publication came out twice weekly and had a circulation of 3,000 — Population of St. Kitts was 14,000 giving a ratio of 1 to 14 — Further it reached the U.S. Virgin Islands and the articles contents were printed in London, Washington and Montreal — Finding by court that the defamatory statement had “wide—publicity” — Finding of court that libel was established — Punitive and exemplary damages awarded —.

1 Singh, J. The “Labour Spokesman” is a Newspaper printed and published in the State of St. Christopher and Nevis with the No. 1 defendant Joseph Nathaniel France as its Editor. The plaintiff is the Prime Minister of the Federation of St. Christopher and Nevis and was at all material times the person holding the office of the Premier of the State of St. Christopher and Nevis. These facts are admitted. On the pleadings it is disputed that this Newspaper has a wide circulation throughout the State of St. Christopher and Nevis and abroad.

2 On page 11 of the issue of this Newspaper dated 23 ^rd May, 1981 there was published an article under the column headed “Frankly Speaking by Fitzroy Bryant”. Fitzroy Bryant is second named defendant in this suit and he is a Barrister-at-Law and a Solicitor of the Supreme Court. The article in issue refers to the disposal by the plaintiff in his capacity as Premier aforesaid of a boat called the MV LIAMUIGA and the acquiring by him of a boat called the MV CARIBE QUEEN. The plaintiff alleges that the words in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant, or were understood to mean:

• (1) that the plaintiff is guilty of corruption;

• (2) that the plaintiff is guilty of incompetence

• (3) that the plaintiff is guilty of dishonesty in the discharge of his office as Premier aforesaid.

3 And, further and in the alternative that the words meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff has committed some fraudulent or dishonest act in connection with the purchase of the MV CARIBE QUEEN. A pleading of an innuendo.

4 The plaintiff further alleges that the words were published by the defendants falsely and maliciously of him in the way of his office and in relation to his conduct and as a consequence he has been seriously injured in his character, credit and reputation and in the way of his office and that he has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt.

5 The plaintiff further alleges that the words were published out of malevolence and spite towards the plaintiff and claim damages of an aggravated nature. In support of this claim for aggravated damages the plaintiff pleads that in several other issues of the said newspaper he eras referred to as a liar and in other terms calculated to disparage him in his office and that the defendants have repeatedly caused to be published the said or a similar libel against him recklessly careless whether it be true or false.

6 The plaintiff also claims damages of an exemplary nature on the basis that the defendants and each of them calculated that the money and/or advantage to be gained out the publication and the repetitions of the same would probably exceed and outweigh the damage at risk, if any. Some ten paragraphs of particulars are pleaded in support of this head of damage the gist of all of them being:

• (1) that such a publication with the repetitious were calculated to widen the circulation of and readership of the said newspaper, and

• (2) that the defendants being members of a political party opposed to the plaintiff and having been seeming to remove him from office, inter alia, by attempts to discredit him with the population, sought by such a publication and the frequent repetition of the same to cause the plaintiff to be removed from office by the electorate and to be replaced by themselves and/or other members of the political party to which they belong.

7 I now set out the libel alleged by the plaintiff.

“SIMMONDS YOU BETTER TALK FAST: WHERE THE $12 MILLION GONE?”

In my column of 20 ^th December 1980 I warned Premier Kennedy Simmonds that the sale of the MV LIAMUIGA and the purchase of the MV CARIBE QUEEN would turn out to be the two most costly mistakes of his political life.

Events since then have shown that Kittitians will never forgive Simmonds for giving away the Liamuiga to his party activist and no amount of explanation will be able to help him.

“The CARIBE QUEEN has proved an even greater embarrassment

CARIBE QUEEN RIP OFF

“Maybe my information is wrong but I don(t think so. There are Kittitians in Tortola, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the United States of America who are very disgusted at this LIAMUIGA give away and CARIBE QUEEN rip-off business and who are watching the fate of both boats with the utmost interest.”

“For example when LIAMUIGA went to St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, after the give-away, some Kittitians there were very violently angry about the corruption surrounding the boats change of hands and nearly got themselves in trouble.”

“SIMMONDS MUST COME CLEAN”

At public meetings the length and breadth of St. Kitts since December last year, Labour's elected representative of the people and others have warned Simmonds that he should come clean about the $12 million and the CARIBE QUEEN.

“Lord have mercy. So what about the $400,000.00 “United States Currency” which the St. Kitts Treasury give to Simmonds? Where the money gone? “Donated” means that the boat was a gift.”

“Simmonds boy, you better talk fast bout the $ 12 million. I hope it is a mistake the magazine mek when it say “donated” because, if it aint a mistake, look at trouble in this little Island of St. Kitts.”

8 In pleading the innuendo referred to above particulars are given in accordance in 082 R3 (1) of the rules of the Supreme Court 1982. The plaintiff alleges in the particulars that the word “rip-off” in the published article imports the perpetration of a swindle or theft by the plaintiff of money allocated to the purchase of the MV Caribe Queen. That the slang “ come clean” import some dishonest concealment or deliberate falsification by the plaintiff of the facts relating to the expenditure attributed to the plaintiff of this sum of $12 M in connection with the purchase of the sum of $12 M in connection with the purchase of the said Caribe Queen and that the question “Where the money gone” directed to the plaintiff imputes that the said sum of $12 M improperly converted by the plaintiff to his own use or at any rate to a use other than the use originally intended for or ascribed to it.

9 In their defence the defendants deny that the words alleged were written, printed or published of the plaintiff and of him in the way of his office and in relation to his conduct therein, falsely and maliciously. They aver that the words complained or do not bear or are not understood to bear and are not capable of bearing the meaning alleged by the plaintiff or of any meaning defamatory of the plaintiff. They plead that in so far as the words complained of 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 said facts which are a matter of public interest.

10 Upon an amendment being granted at a very late stage of the proceedings, that is, at the commencement of the hearing of this matter when originally this matter was filed since July, 1981 the defence also pleads that the words complained of referred to a matter of public interest, that the public had a right to the knowledge of those words and that the defendants had the corresponding duty to communicate these words to the public. A plea of qualified privilege.

11 The defence then sets out in detail particulars of the statement of facts and expressions of opinion based on those facts. The defence also sets out the sources of information upon which the statement of facts mare made and opinions expressed. It refers to the May, 1981 issue of the “Caribbean Reporter”, which stated inter alia that the boat was donated to the State and that the Caribbean Reporter took this information from a Press Release sent out by Morris Silver Associates Inc. of N.Y. U.S.A., a public relations firm retained day the Ste Kitts/Nevis Tourist Board for the purpose of public relations in North America on behalf of the State. The plaintiff in his reply denies that Morris Silver Associates is or was at any material, time his servant or agents.

12 Other sources of information pleaded by the defence is the bulletin of Eastern Caribbean Affairs (ECA) published by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (Eastern Caribbean) of the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados, which described the transaction as a gift from the people of New Orleans, U.S.A., the Advocate News of Barbados, the Public Relations Office of the Government of St. Kitts/Nevis and the Government Radio Stationed ZIZ.

13 The plaintiff in his reply denies that the Public Relations Office or the radio and Television service ZIZ ever broadcast that the boat was a gift and contends that on the 10 ^th December 1980 in a public two part christening ceremony to rename the...