Ramadhar v Ramadhar and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lady Arden,Lord Wilson,Lord Lloyd-Jones,Lord Briggs,Lady Black |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKPC 7 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 0043 of 2018 |
| Date | 02 March 2020 |
[2020] UKPC 7
Lord Wilson
Lady Black
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lord Briggs
Lady Arden
Privy Council Appeal No 0043 of 2018
Hilary Term
From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Appellant
Ramesh L Maharaj SC
Tom Poole
(Instructed by BDB Pitmans LLP)
Respondents:-
(1) Kishore Ramadhar
(2) Rudolph A Hanamji
(3) Satu-Ann Ramcharan
Respondents
Mervyn Campbell
Frederick A Gilkes
Yuri Saunders
(Instructed by Sinclair Gibson)
Heard on 4 July 2019
This is an appeal by Mr Prakash Ramadhar, the first defendant in this above action. He is one of three defendants whom Kokaram J, sitting in the High Court of Justice of Trinidad and Tobago, found liable in damages for defamation, but he is the only defendant to have appealed. The judge's decision was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (Archie CJ and Smith JA, Moosai JA dissenting). The main issue is the meaning of the appellant's statements, because on that turns the question whether he can rely on the defence of truth. There were three claimants in the action, and they are the respondents to this appeal.
All the parties to this action were members of the Congress of the People (“the COP”). In 2010, the COP was one of the partners in the coalition government, the People's Partnership Government of Trinidad and Tobago (“the PP”). The coalition replaced the government of the People's National Movement (“the PNM”). Some of the respondents held high office within the party. Mr Prakash Ramadhar was the political leader of the COP. The first respondent, Mr Kishore Ramadhar, is his brother.
There were disagreements within the COP. Mr Prakash Ramadhar had caused the COP to enter the PP. The respondents disagreed with this decision, and proposed resolutions requiring the National Executive of the party to withdraw from the coalition (the “motion to quit resolution”) and calling on Mr Prakash Ramadhar to account for his leadership of the party (the “resurrection motion”). It was agreed that their resolutions should be considered at a general meeting of the party, called a National Council meeting, which was convened for this purpose for 10 November 2013. In the event the two resolutions were not pursued. Prior to the meeting being held, the respondents criticised Mr Prakash Ramadhar in public.
Local government elections (“the LGE”) were fixed for October 2013. The PNM were reported on 3 October 2013 in the press to have complained to the Elections and Boundaries Commission (the “EBC”) that three of the COP's candidates were not in fact members of it. The PNM also claimed that it had details of the members of the COP. In fact, although this only became known to the members of the COP at the National Council meeting on 10 November 2013, there was a letter dated 1 October 2013 (“the October letter”), purportedly signed by three of the COP's members, namely the first three claimants in the action and respondents to this appeal, and addressed to the secretary of the PNM. This letter informed the PNM that three named candidates put forward by the COP, were not as stated members of the COP and this could be seen from a CD of the membership list of the COP, which was enclosed with the letter. The October letter was read out to the meeting by the fifth defendant to the action, Mr Iqubal Hydal.
In the course of the debate that ensued, a new resolution was proposed by the third defendant to the action, Mr Bahadur. It was to suspend the respondents as members of the National Council and National Executive of the COP.
The resolution to suspend the respondents pending an investigation into their conduct was carried. A committee was set up to investigate the authorship of the October letter, but in the end, when it reported the following year, the committee did not make any finding that the respondents had sent the October letter.
There was considerable press interest in the affairs of the COP. Following the COP's usual practice, Mr Prakash Ramadhar and certain executive members of the COP held a televised press conference immediately after the National Council meeting. At that conference, the chair of the meeting and second defendant to the action, Mrs Seepersad-Bachan, explained that the October letter had been received, what it said and that it had preceded by one day the complaint by the PNM to the EBC, and that this had led to the resolution to suspend the claimants “pending an investigation by an investigating committee,” to be set up within the next seven days. Then Mr Prakash Ramadhar spoke. As more fully appears from his statements (set out in the next two paragraphs), he said that he made no pronouncement on the authenticity of the October letter which was pending investigation but said that it was an act of betrayal to provide another party with the membership lists since it might lead to discrimination against members shown on that list.
The judge quoted the following from Mr Prakash Ramadhar's address to the press conference:
“[1] Contrary to the many efforts by a few to destroy the party, the party stood in its resolve [that the party is greater than any individual or group of individuals. This party is the only hope in the politics of Trinidad and Tobago and I say that unreservedly.]
[2] Those who moved motions of no confidence against the leader of this party knew full well, that they grounded their ambitions in an effort to destroy this party by attacking the leader. They made it clear in other statements that their intent was to destroy this party and that their efforts had nothing to do with the lack of confidence in the leader, but everything to do with their wanting to destroy the leader and therefore the party. The party today resoundingly rejected them and they know full well they could not have succeeded [and] did not pursue their trouble making efforts in the face of the National Council.
[3] They would do so in the media, in solitary effort where they had open space to spread their poison but here where it mattered, where their voices would have been heard so the party would say whether we agree or reject you, they ran away like cowards.
[4] And then to have found that the very personalities who have been making all the mischief on the outside, that this letter has come to us and I make no pronouncements as to its authenticity, it maybe all the media they have garnered for the last several weeks or months, maybe they should go to the media and explain whether they did in fact put their signature to such a letter, betraying the party by disclosing its membership list, something we hold very dear.
[5] And let me explain why [a membership list] is important, when people join a political organisation they are much afraid by that they may be discriminated against by the mere fact that they hold membership in a party. Many may not feel that way, but many do feel that way, [and that is] why we held it in terms of a high level of confidentiality. If it is true that they did do these things, then that is the highest level of treachery that we condemn in politics generally and in the COP unreservedly.
[6] And that is why the suspension, without a finding of guilt, and that is why we ask that a proper and full investigation into the matter and if it proved true, the next step is expulsion from the party […]” (paragraph numbers added)
The transcript of the press conference contains the following as the next paragraph (the last paragraph before Mr Prakash Ramadhar turned to national issues):
“[7] The party has been condemned for not being decisive, but that is to confuse process with doing what is right and what is proper, and in these circumstances where the allegations were so strong and so high, we say step aside and let the investigation be concluded, and then whatever necessary steps be taken after that, the party will engage.” (paragraph number added)
The respondents brought proceedings for defamation, contending, in the case of Mr Prakash Ramadhar, that his statements at the press conference were defamatory.
Mr Prakash Ramadhar contended that his statements were true and denied any malice. He contended that the respondents had been engaged in abusive and disruptive activities at earlier meetings and that they had made disrespectful and critical statements about him in the press.
Section 2 of the Libel and Defamation Act 1846 of Trinidad and Tobago provides that no action for defamation is maintainable in respect of words spoken except in those cases in which an action would be maintainable in respect of the same words in England.
At the trial, the judge heard evidence from several witnesses. The judge held that the imputation made by publishing the contents of the October letter was that the respondents had stolen confidential information and betrayed the COP and that they had acted in bad faith and engaged in behaviour that was inimical to the best interests of the party (Judgment of the judge, para 45). The judge held that the resolution “in effect meant that the respondents had engaged in behaviour that was inimical to the best interests of the party” (Judgment of the judge, para 41).
The judge dealt with the case against each defendant separately. In relation to Mr Prakash Ramadhar, the judge considered his statements at the press conference. He held that they had the same meaning as the resolution. The judge held that Mr Prakash Ramadhar was “overly critical of the conduct of the claimants condemning them of the very allegations which he sought to characterise as mere allegations” (Judgment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick Simmons v Keith Claudius Mitchell
...investigated or an opportunity offered to persons traduced by that information to comment thereon. At paragraphs 36 to 37 of Ramadhar v Ramadhar and others 37, the Privy Council offered some insight into this question of the right of politicians to privacy and the public scrutiny which atte......
-
Patrick Simmons v Keith Claudius Mitchell
...investigated or an opportunity offered to persons traduced by that information to comment thereon. At paragraphs 36 to 37 of Ramadhar v Ramadhar and others 37, the Privy Council offered some insight into this question of the right of politicians to privacy and the public scrutiny which atte......
-
Stephen Young v Melena Simon O'Neil
...must prove the meaning of the “sting” in the statements alleged to be defamatory and that the proven meaning is justified. In Ramadhar v Ramadhar and others [2020] UKPC 7, cited by the Claimant, the Privy Council explained that as Moosai JA pointed out in the Court of Appeal 2: “ 50. … whe......
-
Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan v Kishore Ramadhar
...the judgment. 3 The appeals were considered separately. Mr Prakash Ramadhar's appeal ( Prakash Ramadhar v Kishore Ramadhar and Others [2020] UKPC 7) proceeded at a quicker pace and went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Board) where his appeal was allowed and the judgment......