Bekoe v Broomes
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Carswell |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] UKPC 39 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 32 of 2004 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 31 October 2005 |
[2005] UKPC 39
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Steyn
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Lord Carswell
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Carswell]
In this appeal, brought as of right from the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, the appellant seeks to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeal (Jones, Nelson and Warner JJA) given on 20 October 2003, dismissing the appellant's appeal against a judgment of Ventour J in the High Court dated 3 October 2001, whereby he found in favour of the respondent in a claim brought by him against the appellant for damages for slander and made an award in the sum of T&T$10,000 and costs. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board announced that the appeal would be dismissed with costs, with reasons to be given at a later date. This judgment contains the reasons for their decision.
The respondent is an attorney-at-law in private practice in Trinidad and Tobago. The appellant is a Senior Magistrate who at the relevant time was stationed in Tobago and presided at the First Magistrate's Court in Scarborough. The action the subject of the appeal arises out of words alleged to have been spoken by the appellant on 4 February 1995 to the respondent's brother Cyril Broomes, a sergeant in the Police Service of Trinidad and Tobago. The respondent had been retained by one Ann Powis to act for her in proceedings in which she had been prosecuted for a drugs offence. She was granted bail in November 1994, but subject to a condition that she surrender her passport. Subsequent applications to the Magistrates' Courts and High Court to have the condition removed were unsuccessful. Ms Powis then decided in December 1994 to change her legal representation, terminated the respondent's retainer and engaged another attorney for a further attempt to get her passport back.
This application was due to be heard before the appellant on 2 February 1995, but he decided to transfer it to another magistrate's court, on the ground that the prosecutor in his court was Sergeant Broome, who was regularly concerned with the issue of agreeing or objecting to the grant of bail. The appellant thought that Sergeant Broome's brother the respondent was appearing for the applicant, and felt it best that the prosecutor in the other court should deal with the case. In the events that happened Sergeant Broomes went himself to the other court and handled Ms Powis' application. He did not raise any objection to it and the magistrate removed the condition concerning surrender of her passport.
It was common case that the appellant regarded the fact that Sergeant Broomes had taken this course as reprehensible and that he telephoned him two days later on 4 February 1995 to remonstrate with him. The case for the respondent was that in the course of that conversation the appellant said to Sergeant Broomes:
"Why you let Powis get back her passport? Your brother took $6000 from the woman and never appeared for her. You must not get involved in these things."
The appellant for his part denied that he had made that part of the statement which accused the respondent of taking money from Ms Powis and failing to appear for her, though he accepted that he remonstrated with Sergeant Broomes and might have said that he should not get involved with those things. He made the case that Sergeant Broomes maliciously invented the disputed words about the respondent and his retainer, because the appellant had previously upbraided him on several occasions about his conduct and had written a letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions dated 24 March 1994, in which he had strongly criticised the conduct and competence of prosecutors in his court, giving many instances, a number of which were referable to Sergeant Broome, although the letter did not mention him by name.
It could not be seriously disputed that the words attributed to the appellant were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and that they would be actionable without proof of special damage, since they purported to relate to the respondent in the way of his trade or profession. No plea of justification was advanced and no issue arose of fair comment or qualified privilege. The case accordingly turned on a pure question of fact, whether or not the appellant spoke the words attributed to him.
The trial judge, who was the tribunal of fact, as the matter was tried without a jury, found in the respondent's favour on this factual issue. In his written judgment he expressed his conclusion that Sergeant Broome's testimony had not been discredited by cross-examination. He referred to the fact that a number of matters had been relied on by the appellant as proof of malice on the sergeant's part, but the judge was not satisfied that the evidence adduced established malice or falsified his testimony. He examined a number of pieces of evidence and the bearing that they had on the factual issue before him and concluded (Record, pp 79-80):
"I have carefully considered the evidence before me and I have accepted the testimony of Sergeant Broomes and I hold that the Defendant did speak and publish of and concerning the Plaintiff the words quoted in Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim."
He went on to hold that the words were untrue and defamatory and actionable without proof of special damage. He declined to award aggravated or exemplary damages and made an award of $10,000.
The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judge's decision. His notice of appeal alleged that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and set out a number of matters to which he claimed that the judge had failed to give sufficient weight and a number in which it was said that the judge had misdirected himself. It was also claimed that the judge had erred in his construction of the words and in his conclusion that they discredited or disparaged the respondent in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T (Fact-Finding: Second Appeal)
...he has acted. These are not controversial observations: see Customs and Excise Commissioners v A [2022] EWCA Civ 1039 [2003] Fam 55; Bekoe v Broomes [2005] UKPC 39; Argos Ltd v Office of Fair Trading [2006] EWCA Civ 1318; [2006] UKCLR 1135.” 57 More recently, Lewison LJ summarised the pri......
-
Cadonius De-Havalan Lowe v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...acted. These are not controversial observations: see Customs and Excise Commissioners v A [2002] EWCA Civ 1039; [2003] 2 W.L.R. 210; Bekoe v Broomes [2005] UKPC 39; Argos Ltd v Office of Fair Trading [2006] EWCA Civ 1318; [2006] U.K.C.L.R. 1135” 30 In this case, the FTT had determined t......
-
UBS AG (London Branch) and Another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GMBH UBS Ltd and Another (Third Parties)
...acted. These are not controversial observations: see Customs and Excise Commissioners v A [2002] EWCA Civ 1039; [2003] 2 W.L.R. 210; Bekoe v Broomes [2005] UKPC 39; Argos Ltd v Office of Fair Trading [2006] EWCA Civ 1318; [2006] U.K.C.L.R. 1135." 246 Since that decision the circumstances i......
-
Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd
...he has acted. These are not controversial observations: see Customs and Excise Commissioners v A [2002] EWCA Civ 1039 [2003] Fam 55; Bekoe v Broomes [2005] UKPC 39; Argos Ltd v Office of Fair Trading [2006] EWCA Civ 1318; [2006] UKCLR 116 I make these points not out of any criticism of ......