Nigel Dominic Stewart v Denison George

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Court: High Court (Grenada)
• Judge: Actie, J.
• Judgment Date: 17 January 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0117-1
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2022/0319

Between:

Nigel Dominic Stewart

Claimant

and

Denison George

Defendant

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Agnes Actie High Court Judge

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2022/0319

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Mr. Kristopher Ross-Fields for the Claimant

Ms. Sandina Date for the Defendant

Actie, J.

1 This is a defamation claim for statements made by the defendant during a television program broadcast titled “Beyond the Headlines” aired on the 20 ^th December 2021 on the Grenada Broadcasting Network.

Claimant's Case

2 The claimant is an Attorney-at-Law and the husband of the former Minister of Carriacou and Petite Martinique responsible for Home Affairs and Local Government. The claimant states that he represented an accused at a trial in the Magistrate's Court whereby the accused pleaded guilty to a sexual offence against a minor. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,500.00 to the State and $600.00 to the victim's mother.

3 The claimant avers that that the case generated significant public interest and outcry due to the perceived disproportionate lenience on the part of the Magistrate who sentenced the accused.

4 The claimant contends that while speaking on the program based on the case, the defendant said the following words:

“Let me say this: this was nothing more than corruption. Corruption, nepotism and favouritism. This individual hired the Minister of Carriacou husband to be his lawyer. That was no coincidence. We have proof that an airline ticket was purchased for this guy to get out of Grenada once that verdict was read, on American Airlines.”

5 The claimant contends that the defendant further stated:

“Let me just say this. I was the one who brought this case to the FBI. I was the one who brought this case to the US Attorney's Office, the Brooklyn DA's office, and the New York State Attorney General's Office. So I'm privy to more information than Mr. Ramdhani maybe has. But I want to say clearly that this was a miscarriage of justice… the Grenadian Justice System when it comes to dealing with these kinds of cases, when it comes to dealing with this case was an idiocracy. Plain and simple. And corruption, nepotism, and favouritism played its head in this case and this is why this individual evade justice in Grenada.”

6 The claimant avers that he was libelled by the defendant over zoom and further in the forum of the live television program which was being broadcasted nationally to the public of Grenada.

7 The claimant contends that the natural and ordinary meanings of the words were as follows:

• (1) The sentence handed down to the accused was lenient due to the presence of corruption in the proceedings;

• (2) The claimant was intentionally hired to be the attorney of the accused because the claimant, as the then husband of a Minister of Government, had some undue and corrupt influence over or relationship with members of the magistracy; and

• (3) The claimant was only able to get a lenient sentence for his client, because of nepotism, corruption and favouritism, in which the claimant was somehow involved.

8 The claimant further contends that beyond their natural and ordinary meaning, these words could also be taken to mean by innuendo that the claimant was involved in attempting to have the accused rushed out of the country after being sentenced in an attempt to remove him from the jurisdiction of the courts of Grenada.

9 The claimant asserts that the defendant's statements lowered his estimation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The claimant further asserts that he has been exposed to public odium and contempt and suffered reputational damage, hurt feelings and significant mental anguish as a result of the defendant's defamatory statements.

10 The claimant claims among other things, damages for defamation, an order compelling the defendant to publish a retraction and apology for the statements, interests and costs.

Defendant's Case

11 The defendant states that his views as expressed on the program were premised by his introductory statement of:

“Let me just say that I am very very disappointed in what your guest Mr. Ramdhani just said. It's very very disappointing. I don't know how he could sit there and say people did a good job. I don't know how he could sit there and justify someone who violated a child in the most vicious sexual way and justify that this individual was required to pay $600.00 to the parent for counselling and $1,200.00 [sic] to the state I don't know how Mr. Ramdhani could sit there and claim that justice, that the police did a good job that this one did a good job… this was a travesty of justice… you spoke about putting the child through trauma what about the trauma this child has to go through the rest of his life about what this individual did to this child.”

12 The defendant states that the words uttered by him were not defamatory, and that he made one fleeting unnamed reference to the claimant as the accused man's attorney, and that for the remaining duration of the program the claimant was not referenced or named.

13 The defendant also contends that his statement was a criticism of the judicial system and expression of the defendant's opinion on a highly published social and legal issue. The defendant states that the statement did not extend itself beyond a matter of public interest and denies that he attacked the claimant's character.

14 The defendant further states that at the material time in Grenada there were national discussions addressing topics of protecting children from abuse, and that the case was in flagrant discord to the government's purported observance of Child Month.

15 The defendant relies on the defences of justification and fair comment, and states that the words represented fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Legal Analysis

Whether the words complained of are defamatory

16 Defamation is committed when the defendant publishes to a third person words or matter containing an untrue imputation against the reputation of the claimant 1. To succeed in an action for defamation, a claimant must prove the making of a statement by a defendant tending to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking-members of the society, the publication of that statement to a third party/parties, and the words must be construed in their natural and ordinary meaning 2.

17 The authors of Halsbury's Laws of England 3 describe the test of what is defamatory in the following manner:

“In deciding whether or not a statement is defamatory, the court must first consider the notional single meaning that the words would convey to the ordinary person. … the court seeks to determine and act upon the one and

only meaning that the readers as reasonable persons should have collectively understood the words to bear. Having determined the meaning, the test is whether, under the circumstances in which the words were published, the reasonable person would be likely to understand them in a defamatory sense. …

Words will be defamatory if they impute conduct the reasonable person considers discreditable, even though in the author's stated view such conduct is proper.”

18 In Charleston & Anr v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anr 4 their Lordships referred to the text of Duncan & Neil on Defamation 5 as follows:

“In order to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of which the plaintiff complains it is necessary to take into account the context in which the words were used and the mode of publication…”

19 Counsel for the claimant argues that on a plain reading of the words the defendant identified the fact that the claimant was hired as the convict's lawyer as being an example of the corruption, nepotism, and favouritism present in the criminal case. Counsel for the claimant also asserts that the defendant alluded to the claimant's marriage to a Minister of Government, to substantiate the allegation of the presence of corruption.

20 On the other hand, counsel for the defendant states that no foundation was laid to impugn the claimant and no connection was made between the claimant and the statements. Counsel for the defendant argues instead that the statements referenced a flawed magisterial judiciary. It is the defendant's evidence that when he mentioned the claimant by his reference to the then Minister, he did not attempt to impugn him but listed him as part of the entire judicial system which seemed to have failed the victim. The defendant states that the comments of corruption, nepotism and favouritism do not accuse the claimant of any misdeed and that the comments were made to identify the lax judicial experience afforded to the convict.

21 While the defendant did not specifically accuse the claimant of the said corruption, nepotism and favouritism which he highlights in his statement, the court cannot ignore the fact that when mentioning the said corruption, nepotism and favouritism, the defendant proceeded to reference the claimant, the husband of a then Minister of Government, as being the attorney for the convict. Further, after said reference to the claimant, the defendant explicitly states that the hiring of the claimant as the convict's attorney “was no coincidence”.

22 The evidence of the defamatory statements complained of by the claimant is given by the claimant and Janelle Mc Donald, witness for the claimant. Janelle Mc Donald states that after the defendant uttered the defamatory words, the moderator of the program, Mrs. Odette Campbell, interjected at that point to caution the defendant and said:

“Let me just say that we are on National TV, and whereas you might have some information, we at the GBN do not have corroborating information… so we have to protect ourselves, right? And where it is not necessary to be naming names, let's stay away from that…Let's just lay...