Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan v Kishore Ramadhar

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Boodoosingh JA
• Judgment Date: 07 July 2021
• Neutral Citation: TT 2021 CA 28
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. P024/2016
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Panel:

Allan Mendonça, JA

Gregory Smith, JA

Ronnie Boodoosingh, JA

Civil Appeal No. P024/2016

Between:

Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan

Appellant

and

Kishore Ramadhar

First Respondent

Rudolph A. Hanamji

Second Respondent

Satu-Ann Ramcharan

Third Respondent

Appearances:

Mr Abdel Ashraph instructed by Mrs Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan and Ms Ratna Capildeo for the Appellant

Mr Kishore Ramadhar, appearing on his own behalf, instructed by Ms Lena Jaggernath for the First Respondent

I agree with the judgment of Boodoosingh JA.

A. Mendonça

Justice of Appeal

I also agree with the judgment of Boodoosingh JA.

G. Smith

Justice of Appeal

Delivered by Boodoosingh JA

1 The appellant, Mrs Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan (Mrs Seepersad-Bachan), in 2013, was the Chair of a political party, the Congress of the People, (COP). The first respondent, Mr Kishore Ramadhar, was a member of its National Council. There were two other respondents to the appeal, Mr Rudolph A. Hanamji and Ms Satu-Ann Ramcharan. The appeals against them were settled before the hearing of the appeal. While their names therefore remain formally on the proceedings, they took no part in this appeal.

2 A meeting of the National Council of the COP was held on 10 November 2013. This turned out to be a contentious meeting where the leadership of the party and the respondents were of differing views on internal matters and the party's relationship with its coalition partner in government. After the meeting, a media conference was held to inform the waiting media and the national community of what had taken place at the meeting. Mrs Seepersad-Bachan, in her capacity as Chair, and Mr Prakash Ramadhar, the political leader of the COP, addressed the media conference. An intriguing fact, from a human interest perspective, was that Mr Prakash Ramadhar and Mr Kishore Ramadhar are brothers. The statements made were broadcast live and reported on different media. In the light of the statements made by both the Chair and Political Leader, Mr Kishore Ramadhar along with Mr Hanamji, Ms Ramcharan and other persons brought claims for defamation against Mrs Seepersad-Bachan and Mr Prakash Ramadhar. The claimants succeeded at the High Court. The judge found Mrs Seepersad-Bachan's statements to be defamatory and unjustified and awarded damages. Mrs Seepersad-Bachan was ordered to pay Mr Kishore Ramadhar the sum of $75,000.00. Both Mr Prakash Ramadhar and Mrs Seepersad-Bachan appealed 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 set aside against him.

4 The words complained of in relation to Mrs Seepersad-Bachan, which she has not disputed she said, are as follows:

“However, this morning a motion was also tabled based on information coming to the COP by Members of the party, this information involved the very same people, Mr. Rudolph Andrew Hanamji, Mr. Kishore Ramadhar and Ms. Satu-Ann Ramcharan that in the first instance, we heard this morning which we had been hearing before, that these persons had been discouraging our candidates and were asking them to withdraw.

Secondly that they had run ground campaigns against many of our candidates and in fact we had heard one such complaint from one of our candidates this morning, thirdly, we were presented this morning at National Council a letter written to the General Secretary of the PNM, Mr. Ashton Ford signed by, [Interruption] purportedly signed by Mr. Rudolph Andrew Hanamji, Mr. Kishore Ramadhar and Ms. Satu-Ann Ramcharan and in it they state as members of the COP they wish to point out that the following persons who are candidates in this Local Government Elections, contesting under the COP, are not members of the COP as required by law. And they named these candidates as Ms. J. Lynn Roopnarine for the Electoral District of Dabadie/ Carapo; Dianne Bishop for the Electoral District of Five Rivers/Lopinot and Mr. Prakash Bharat for the Caura/ Tacarigua/ Paradise Electoral District.

It is important to note that this letter is dated 1st of October 2013 and on the 2nd of October 2013, Mr. Keith Rowley and members of the PNM did write to the EBC challenging the membership of these very same members. They also indicated that they had attached in this letter a CD of all the membership of the COP and therefore as their evidence we consider this to be inimical to the party's interests. That members of our party, who are members of this National Executive and who are members of the National Council would take this information, the COP database to the PNM we consider inimical to the party's interest and we condemn that type of behaviour of our members.

As a consequence of that a motion was moved to have them suspended from the National Council and the National Executive pending an investigation by an investigating committee within the next 7 days and that National Executive committee will report to the National Council, and as we do so further decisions would be taken by the National Council. For at this point in time, these members are suspended not from the membership of the party they are suspended from the National Council and the National Executive until the matter can be fully investigated by this committee […]”

5 There were three key aspects of Mrs Seepersad-Bachan's statements that were of significance in the defamation claim. These were allegations that Mr Kishore Ramadhar and his colleagues were discouraging candidates; that they were involved in running ground campaigns against some of the party's candidates; and that they had written or signed the letter mentioned in Mrs Seepersad-Bachan's statement to the General Secretary of the opposition PNM political party. This letter had suggested that three named candidates put forward by the COP for the local elections were not members of the COP which could be seen from a CD of the membership list of the COP, enclosed with the letter. That letter referred to by Mrs Seepersad-Bachan was a central focus of the meeting and the media conference.

6 At the media conference, Mrs Seepersad-Bachan spoke first followed by Mr Prakash Ramadhar. In summary, Mr Prakash Ramadhar said despite the efforts of a few in the party to destroy it, the party stood in its resolve. Persons who moved no confidence motions against him wanted to destroy the party and him as leader. Those persons did so by spreading “poison” in the media, but where their voices mattered at the meeting, “they ran away like cowards”. He said the very personalities were making mischief outside and “this letter” came to the party “and I make no pronouncements as to its authenticity”. He said they should go to the media and explain whether they put their names to that letter. He spoke about the importance of a membership list to a party and that disclosing it to a rival party would be “the highest level of treachery”. He then said this is why there was the suspension from the party, without a finding of guilt, and a proper and full investigation should follow. He said if the allegations were proved to be true, the next step would be expulsion from the party. He added that where the allegations were “so strong and high, we say step aside and let the investigation be concluded…”

7 It was accepted in his Privy Council appeal that Mr Prakash Ramadhar had adopted Mrs Seepersad-Bachan's words before he went on to make his own statement. Accordingly, there was some consideration of her statement in that appeal. Mrs Seepersad-Bachan's statement was, however, not the focus of that appeal but was examined to the extent that Mr Prakash Ramadhar had adopted them and then proceeded to make his statement. This court accordingly must consider Mrs Seepersad-Bachan's statements separately and review the judge's findings independently.

8 Various defences were raised by Mrs Seepersad-Bachan at the trial. On appeal, she has essentially confined her case to justification and qualified privilege. If either of these defences succeed, this would be sufficient to overturn the judge's decision. I will proceed to first consider the defence of justification.

Justification

9 Justification provides a complete defence to a claim of defamation. Once the meaning is found to be defamatory, a defendant has to establish the essential or substantial truth of the imputation conveyed by the statement. Every material part of the imputation must be shown to be true. The defamatory sting of the allegation complained about must be shown to be objectively true as a matter of fact: Chase v News Group Newspapers Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 1777, para 45, per Brooke LJ. The sting of the libel may be capable of one of the three levels or categories of justification identified as the Chase levels. These are (a) proof of guilt; (b) proof of the fact of an inquiry; or (c) proof of reasonable grounds for the inquiry. On the road to determining whether the defence succeeds, the court has to determine the meaning that the publication conveys to the notional reasonable reader or listener: see Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65 per Lord Bridge. The reasonable person infers the meaning from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. In Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234, Lord Devlin noted that a publication that the fraud squad was investigating the affairs of a company and its Chairman might imply that there is a suspicion of fraud, but not that the company and Chair were guilty of fraud.

10 As it concerned the issue of justification, the Board in the Prakash Ramadhar appeal stated:

“7. At that conference, the chair of the meeting and second defendant to the action, Mrs Seepersad-Bachan, explained that the October letter had...