Michael O. Powell Defendant/Appellant v Esmond St. John Payne Plaintiff/Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: DAVIS. C.J.,CHIEF JUSTICE
• Judgment Date: 30 November 1977
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1977] ECSC J1130-1
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7 of 1977
• Date: 30 November 1977
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)

[1977] ECSC J1130-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Sir Maurice Davis, Q.C.—Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

The Honourable Mr. Justice Hewlett (Acting)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7 of 1977

Between:

Michael O. Powell

Defendant/Appellant

and

Esmond St. John Payne

Plaintiff/Respondent

Appearances:

Dr. W. Herbert for Appellant

T. Byron with him

F. Bryant for Respondent

C. Wilkin with him

DAVIS. C.J.

"PARTICULARS

1 The following words are statement 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 a 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 and 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".

During the course of the trial application was made by Counsel for the Defendant/Appellant to further amend the pleadings by the addition to the particulars to para. 4 of a sub-para (c) after sub-para (b) of para. 2 thereof to read as follows:

"(c) St. John Payne did build a house at Bird Rock and Government trucks took materials there."

Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent objected to the amendment sought and leave to further amend the pleadings was refused by the Court.

Briefly, the facts are that on the night of the 27th February, 1977, P.C. Chapman was on duty at Pall Mall Square, Basseterre,having been specifically sent there by the Commissioner of Police to tape-record speeches made at a political meeting held by the People's Action Movement, a political party in opposition to the Government. Among the speeches tape-recorded by him was that of the Defendant/Appellant. At the trial P.C. Chapman was permitted by the Court to replay on the same tape-recorder he had used that part of the Defendant/Appellant's speech which relates to the statement of claim. In his judgment the trial judge has recorded as one of his findings the following:

"I have no hesitation in finding as a fact that the words I heard on the tape-recorder in Court were spoken by the defendant through the medium of a public address system and t hat the said words are substantially the same as those alleged in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim."

The trial judge also held that the words were capable of a meaning defamatory of the Plaintiff/Respondent, and were in fact defamatory of him. He found too that the words complained of were published falsely and maliciously. After dealing with certain aspects of the defence which he rejected he went on to assess damages in the amount stated.

• (1)That the learned trial judge erred in hearing the case when the summons for directions was not in order.

• (2)That the learned trial Judge erred in refusing the application by the Defence that interrogatories be administered.

• (3)That the learned trial Judge erred in admitting evidence of the tape recording.

• (4)That the learned trial Judge erred in refusing to admit evidence to show that the Plaintiff had used Government trucks to take materials to his building Site.

• (5)That the findings of the learned trial Judge on the question of malice are contradictory and erroneous.

• (6)That the learned trial Judge erred in finding that the action for slander lay without proof of special damage.

• (7)That the decision is unreasonable having regard to the evidence.

• (8)That the amount of damages awarded is excessive.

• (9)That the ruling of the learned trial Judge in awarding costs to the...