Joseph Nathaniel France et al v Kennedy Alphonse Simmonds

Pr ivy Council Appeal N o . 4 7 o f 1988 Joseph Nathaniel France and Fitzroy Bryant Appellants v . Kennedy Alphonse Simmonds Responde nt FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT (ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS) ————– ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, DELIVERED THE 20TH FEBRUARY 1990 ————– – Pr esent at the hearing:­ LORD KEITH oF KINKEL LORD BRANDON OF OAKBROOK LORD TEMPLE MAN LORD GOF F OF CH!EVELE Y LORD LOWRY [ De liv ered by Lord Keith o f Kinkel ] —————- This appeal f r o m t he Co u r t of Appeal of the Eastern Ca rib bea n S u p r e me Co u r t r1n s e s o u t o f pr oce ed ings for libel in s t it u te d by the r e s po nd e n t , the Pnme Mi nis te r of the Fe de r a ti o n o f Saint Ch n s to p he r and Nevis, against t he d e fe nd a n t appellants, the editor ofa oJu r na l called “The Labour Spokes ma n” and o ne o f the jou r n a li s t s who regularly published articles in t ha t jou r na l . The article which led to the proceedings was published in “The Labour Spo ke s ma n ” o n 23r d May 1981 a n d was written by t he second defe n d a n t whose name appeared at the head of it. The a r t icl e was co n c er n e d with c e r t ai n t r a ns ac ti o ns which had taken place in c on n e c t ion with the dis posal o f a ferry boat, wh ic h for me r ly plied between Sain t C h r is to p he r a nd Ne v is dnd which had been damaged by a hu r n ca n,e and the ac q u is i t ion of a new ves s e l fo r the purpose of undertaking the ferry servic e . The article on the face of it appeared to be stating that the Prime Minister had beeng u ilty o f co r u p n o n in r e la t10n to the t r ans a c t oins t n vol v t n g t he se t.wo ._. t’ s s el s . – – —– – – – – 2 – – – – – When the matter came to trwl bP! o r e Ylr . Justice Sin h , he had to con s id e r f 1 r s t whether the article was capable of a defamatory meaning and second l y whether t he a rt icl e was in fact def a ma to r y . He took t he view that the article was indeed capable of a d efa ma t o r y meaning and their Lordships cons id e r t ha t he was e n ti r ely co r r ec t in that concl u s io n . He went on to find that the article was d e fa ma to r y of the respondent and his f in d i n g of fact in that respect was affirmed by the Cou r t of A p peal. There are thus concurrent findings of fact and t he r e are not present any of the c i r c u ms ta nc e s wh ic h might warrant this Bo a r d m in t e rf e r i n g with those concu r r e n t findings. The def e n da n ts pleaded fa ir comment and qualified pr ivil e g e but the t ri a l J u d g e found that at least the secon d defendant had been ac t ua te d by malice in the making of t he pu blica t io n . The Co u rt o f Appeal affirmed that f m d m g , so here again t he r e a r e concurrent finding of fact and no grounds u po n which their Lo r ds hip s would co ns ide r interfering with those fi n d i n g s . ln these cir cums t a n c e s there is no doubt that the findings of liability af f i r me d b y the Co u rt of Appeal must stand. Then 1t was argued that the da ma g e s a wa r d ed in the sum of $75,000 were excessive but their Lo r d s h ip s ca n find no good grounds for mterf ering with t he decision of the Co u rt of Appeal wh o affirmed the judge on the quantum of damages, cons id e ri ng that the Court of A p pe a l are fully fa milia r w1th ec o no mi c a n d other rele va n t cir c ums ta nc e s in Saint Ch ri s to p he r a n d Nevis and their Lordships do not enJo y a similar ad vantage . A point was sought to be made under section 12 of the Con s ti t u tio n of Sa in t Christopher and Nevis but their Lo r d s h ip s do not c o ns id e r t ha t that provisio n adds anything to the requ ir e me n t s of the c o mmo n law as regards the circu ms ta n ce s u n de r which defa ma tio n ma y be found and which may inhibit freedom of s p e e c h . Finally, it was argued that the finding of malice against the second defendant should not be attri b ut ed to the first defendant. However, m fa c t , the Jud ge found that the first defendant also was actuated by malice m r es pec t that the publication complained of was part of a malicious ca mp a ig n directed against the respondent to wh tc h the first defendant as well as the second defendant was par ty . For these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise Her MaJe s t y that this appeal s ho uld be d1s m1s s e d . The a p pella n ts must pay the respondent’s costs .