Crusader Caribbean Publishing Company (1971) Ltd and Odlum v Compton
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Davis, C.J |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1978 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1978 CA 5 |
| Docket Number | Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1977 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 24 May 1978 |
Court of Appeal
Davis, C.J., Peterkin, J.A., Nedd, J.A. (Ag)
Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1977
A. Alexander and H. Detervile with him for the appellants.
H. Giraudy for the respondent.
Damages - Libel — Newspaper article — Quantum — Award of $50,000 reduced to $35,000 as being fair.
This is an appeal against the judgment of Bruno, J, in which he awarded the plaintiff/respondent the sum of $60,000 damages with costs to be taxed, and he also granted an injunction restraining the defendants/appellants and each of them by themselves their agents or otherwise, from further publishing the said or any similar libels.
The defendants/appellants are asking the court to set aside the decision in the action together with all orders and directions made or given by Renwick and Bruno, JJ. in the suit with costs.
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
(1) That the amount of damages awarded is excessive;
(2) That the decision or judgment is against the weight of the evidence;
(3) That the judge who heard the action was not independent or impartial or was disqualified by reason of bias and should have excused himself from the conduct and hearing of the suit
(4) That the first-named defendant/appellant had not been heard nor duly summoned to the hearing and accordingly the learned judge could not have adjudicated upon the judicial demands made against the said first-named defendant/appellant, and the decision made therein is therefore a NULLITY
(5) That the learned judge should have granted the application for an adjournment.
(6) That the second-named defendant/appellant was taken by surprise and seriously embarassed in his defence in that he could not reasonably have anticipated that the action would have gone on to trial immediately his application for discovery would have been heard
(7) That the learned judge should have exercised his jurisdiction and should have granted the application for leave to appeal from his order dismissing the application for discovery of documents and he ought not to have proceeded immediately to the hearing of the action;
(8) That the Learned Judge erred in admitting the transcripts in evidence;
(9) That the orders of Renwick, J made in the Suit are NULLITIES, he being disqualified from hearing the Suit and admitting his disqualification, and the hearing of the action and the decision made therein based on these NULLITIES are themselves NULLITIES;
(10) That the conduct of the Suit as a whole and the procedures therein adopted constitute a violation of the constitutional rights of the defendants/appellants to a fair hearing; and the improprieties and failures to comply with the Rules of Court were so serious as to be contrary to natural justice and to render the proceedings and the orders and decision made therein NULL and VOID.
In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, it is necessary to give a history of the matter.
The action was commenced by Writ of Summons dated the 18th April, 1975, accompanied by a Statement of Claim. In his Statement of Claim plaintiff/respondent pleaded as follows: –
(1) The plaintiff is and was at all times material hereto a barrister-at-law, a farmer and the Premier of the State of St. Lucia.
(2) The first-named defendant is and was at all times material hereto the proprietor; publisher and printer and the second-named defendant is and was at all times material hereto the editor of “Crusader”.
(3) “Crusader” is a newspaper which has a wide circulation throughout the State of Saint Lucia and overseas,.
(4) On page 1 of the issue of “Crusader” dated 22nd March 1975 (Vol.1 No.72), the defendants published the contents of (exclusive of the diagram annexed unto) a Crown Grant dated 5th January 1970 and registered in Vol.110 No, 92587 whereunder 3.18 acres more or less of land in the quarter of Micoud St. Lucia were conveyed to the plaintiff.
(5) On the said page 1 of the issue of “Crusader” dated 22nd March 1975 (Vol.1 No. 73) under the headlines “MOVE TO ARREST COMPTON”, the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published or caused to be printed and published throughout the said State and overseas of the plaintiff and of him in the way of his said office as Premier of the said State and in relation to his conduct therein an article containing the following words, namely–
(a) “Since Hon. John Compton at the time of the sale was Premier of St. Lucia and Article 1394 of the Civil Code of St Lucia prohibits public officers from becoming buyers of public property entrusted to them, there is a move to issue a warrant for the arrest of Premier John Compton”
(b) “Premier Compton as head of the Cabinet was directly involved in the decision to sell himself three acres of Crown Lands for nine hundred and fifty-four dollars ($954) and certain members of the Opposition have initiated action to charge Hon. Compton for his flagrant violation of the Criminal Code of St. Lucia”
(c) “A long-time observer of the St. Lucian political scene told the Crusaders “I can remember clearly in 1971 when the Government of Premier Compton was accused of corruption on public platforms, the Premier told the Press to show him the corrupt minister and he will dismiss that minister within the hour. Well now is the time for the Premier to back his words with action”.
(6) By the said headlines “MOVE TO ARREST COMPTON” and by the words set out in paragraph (5)(a) & (b) hereof in their ordinary and natural meaning, the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff had in respect of the issue of the said Crown Grant committed a crime punishable by imprisonment.
(7) By the words set out in paragraph (5)(c) hereof in their ordinary and natural meaning in the context of their publication, the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff had in respect of the issue of the said Crown Grant been guilty of corruption in his capacity as a minister of Government and for this reason is morally unfit to retain his office as Premier of the said State and should be removed therefrom.
(8) On page 1 of the issue of “Crusader” dated 29th March 1975 (Vol.1 No.73) the defendants again published the contents of the said Crown Grant without the diagram annexed thereunto.
(9) On the said page 1 of the issue of “Crusader” dated 29th March 1975 (Vol.1 No. 73) under the headlines “COMPTON'S CROWN GRANT - WHAT THE LAW SAYS” the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published or caused to be printed and published of the plaintiff and of him in the way of his said office as Premier of the said State and in relation to his conduct therein an article containing the following words namely–
(a) “And if the Premier breaks the law and buys Crown Lands in his own name, to what penalty does he opens himself.
Article 582 of the Criminal Code states:
Whoever, being a public officer, in the discharge of the duties of his office, commits any fraud or breach of trust affecting the public, whether such fraud or breach of trust would have been criminal or not if committed against a private person is liable indictably to imprisonment for five years, or summarily for imprisonment for six months.”
(b) “And if the breach of trust is fraudulent, Article 340(1) (amended) says:
Whoever commits a fraudulent breach of trust is liable indictably to imprisonment for five years, or if the property does not exceed forty-eight dollars in value, summarily to imprisonment for twelve months.”
(10) By the words set out in paragraph (9)(a) & (b) hereof in their ordinary and natural meaning in the context of their publication, the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff has in respect of the said Crown Grant committed a criminal breach of trust affecting the public and other crimes involving fraud punishable with imprisonment.
(11) By the said words set out in paragraph (9)(a) & (b) hereof in their extended meaning by reason of the facts and circumstances set out in the Particulars hereunder, the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff has, in respect of the said Crown Grant committed a criminal breach of trust affecting the public and committed other crimes involving fraud - all punishable with imprisonment.
PARTICULARS PURSUANT TO R.S.C. ORDER 18, r.12(4)
(with reference to paragraph (11) hereof)
(a) The publication of the article referred to in paragraph (5) hereof and in particular the following words thereof :–
(i) the headlines ‘MOVE TO ARREST COMPTON”;
(ii) the words “there is a move to issue a warrant for the arrest of Premier John Compton
(iii) the words “certain members of the Opposition have initiated action to charge Hon. Compton for his flagrant violation of the Criminal Code of St. Lucia”;
(b) The facts set out in paragraph (3) hereof.
(12) By reason and in consequence of the publication of the words set out in paragraph (5) hereof understood in their ordinary and natural meanings as aforesaid and by reason and in consequence of the publication of the words set out in paragraph (9) hereof understood in their natural and ordinary and/or their extended meanings as aforesaid, the plaintiff has been seriously injured and disparaged in his character, credit and reputation and in the way of his office as Premier of the State of Saint Lucia and of his said profession and has been brought into public scandal, odium, contempt, ridicule and ostracism and has suffered damage.
(13) Unless restrained by this Honourable Court, the defendants and each of them intend to publish the said and similar libels of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claims: –
(a) General damages for libel
(b) An injunction to restrain the defendants and each of them by themselves their agents or servants or otherwise from further publishing the said or...
To continue reading
Request your trial