Gordon v Panday

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Jamadar, J
• Judgment Date: 11 October 2000
• Neutral Citation: TT 2000 HC 133
• Docket Number: No. Cv. 1443 of 1997
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 11 October 2000

High Court

Jamadar, J

No. Cv. 1443 of 1997

Gordon

and

Panday

Mr. D. Mendes, Ms. V. Gopaul and Mr. D. Gurley for the plaintiff

Mr. S. Maharaj S.C., Mr. D. Cowie and Mr. D. Rampersad for the defendant

Damages - Defamation — Plaintiff sought damages for allegedly defamatory words spoken against him by defendant — Whether tort of defamation had been established — Whether there were defences available — Judgment for plaintiff — Quantum or general damages assessed at $600,000 — Costs to plaintiff.

INTRODUCTION

1 Here every creed and race find an equal place, And may God bless our nation.

2 Here every creed and race find an equal place, And may God bless our nation.

3 With these words, the National Anthem of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago concludes. These words were composed and penned at the time of our Independence in 1962, and they reflect both the vision and hope of a People. Their repetition emphasises their importance and the underlying plural reality that is Trinidad and Tobago.

4 Trinidad and Tobago is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, plural society. In fact, as the 1998 statistics published by the Trinidad and Tobago Central Statistical Office demonstrate, our ethnic and religious compositions are as follows (the Hindu, Muslim and Presbyterian adherents being mainly of East Indian descent):

5 Non-Institutional Population

	1980%	1990		1980	1990
Ethnic Group			Religion
African Desc.	40.8	39.6	Roman Catholic	33.6	29.4
E. Indian Desc.	40.7	40.3	Anglican	15.0	10.9
White	0.9	0.6	Hindu	25.0	23.8
Chinese	0.5	0.4	Islam	5.9	5.8
Mixed	16.3	18.4	Presbyterian	3.9	3.4
Other	0.8	0.2	Other	16.6	25.7
Not Stated	–	0.4	Not Stated	–	1.0

6 Understandably therefore, when we acquired Republican status in 1976 and enacted Act. No. 4 of 1976, The Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, it was stated in the Preamble thereof:–

7 Whereas the People of Trinidad and Tobago

• (a) have affirmed that the Nation of Trinidad and Tobago is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, faith in fundamental human rights and freedoms, the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions, the dignity of the human person and the equal and inalienable rights with which all members of the human family are endowed by their Creator;

• (4) recognise that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;

8 Thereafter, the first chapter of The Constitution provides for the recognition and protection of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, and enshrines inter alia the following rights:

• (c) the right of the individual to respect for his private and family life;

• (e) the right to join political parties and to express political views;

• (h) freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance;

• (i) freedom of thought and expression;

• (k) freedom of the press.

9 These statements of principle and enactment of rights, reflect what we as a People hold to be invaluable and essential to the spiritual, moral and legal existence of the free, democratic society that is the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. These are some of the ideals that the courts are called upon to protect in ensuring that no institution and/or no individual undermines the democratic fabric of Trinidad and Tobago. They are some of the principles that inform the interpretation and application of the law of our Land.

THE FACTS

10 On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Anthony Frazer, Mr. Richard Lord and the plaintiff himself testified. The defendant did not testify and called no witnesses on his behalf. Having seen and heard the plaintiff and his witnesses and having observed them under cross-examination, I have no doubt whatsoever that they were all witnesses of truth and forthrightness, whose evidence was not in any material way undermined or contradicted. My assessment of the facts, based on the evidence and pleadings, is as follows.

THE PLAINTIFF

11 In May, 1997, the plaintiff was a prominent citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, was married with children and enjoyed a distinguished career in the media business, public affairs and in commerce. He was a publisher, a company director and a businessman and was Chief Executive Officer of the Caribbean Communications Network (CCN), one of the leading media houses in Trinidad and Tobago. In 1997, the plaintiff was also Chairman of British West Indies Airways (the ‘national’ airline of Trinidad and Tobago), Chairman of Neal and Massy Holdings Limited (a large international conglomerate based in Trinidad and Tobago) and was a member of the Board of Directors of the following companies, namely, Lever Brothers West Indies Limited, The Nation Corporation (Barbados), The Voice of Barbados, The Jamaica Observer and The Caribbean Publishing Company. He was also President of the Caribbean Association of Industry and Commerce. Between 1986 to 1990, the plaintiff served as Minister of Industry, Enterprise and Tourism in the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

12 The Plaintiff's involvement in and association with the media business has a long and distinguished history. CCN was originally the Express Newspaper, which was started in 1967. The plaintiff joined the Express Newspaper in 1969 and has remained associated with it and its successor, CCN, since that time. Prior to his stint in active politics as a Minister in Government as stated above, the plaintiff was Managing Director of the Express Newspaper/CCN from 1969 to 1986 and Chairman and CEO of CCN from 1991 until 1997. In 1997, the media concerns of CCN included not only the Express Newspaper, but also a national television station (‘TV-6’). In addition, CCN had interests outside of Trinidad and Tobago. In Barbados, it holds a 12% equity in the Nation (Barbados) Group of Companies, which owns the Barbados Nation Newspaper (a daily newspaper); in Jamaica, it holds a 10% equity in the Jamaica Observer (a daily newspaper); in Guyana, it holds a 25% interest in the Stabrock News of Guyana (a daily newspaper); and in Grenada, it holds a 60% equity in the Grenada Broadcasting Network.

13 In or about 1975, the plaintiff was the Founding Director of the Caribbean News Agency — CANA, established as a regional media news collecting and disseminating agency. CANA's success is best reflected in the following statistics. At its inception twenty-five years ago, it disseminated 100 words per day; at present, it disseminates about 20,000 words per day.

14 In addition to all of the above, the plaintiff has been the recipient of several local and international awards. Notably, and related to the media business, the plaintiff received the following awards: The Inter-American Press Association Award, 1985–1986, for the Hemispheric Defence of Press Freedom; the Commonwealth Press Union Award, 1986–1987, for the Defence of Press Freedom; and the Maria Moors Cadot Gold Medal, 1987–1988 for the Defence of Press Freedom. In addition to these three awards, the plaintiff also received a United Nations award for international affairs in 1991; the Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago Award in 1997, and an award from the Barbados Nation Newspaper in 1998 (in recognition of being a part founder of same).

15 It is clear from the above, that the plaintiff has enjoyed a long and illustrious career in the media business and has been involved throughout the Caribbean region in the post independence development of indigenous news dissemination and reporting. Notably, for the three consecutive year period, 1985 to 1988, the plaintiff had been selected above all his peers and recognised for his defence of press freedom.

16 In my opinion, the unchallenged and unequivocal evidence before this court, is that the plaintiff has been for over thirty (30) years, a dynamic, creative and active force behind the emergence, creation and sustenance of a free, independent and indigenous press/media throughout the Caribbean, and particularly within Trinidad and Tobago. Hearing him testify, especially in response to what was a rigorous cross examination, I have formed the opinion that deep within the plaintiff burns an inextinguishable passion for and commitment to the role of a free press in a democratic society.

17 In 1969, when the plaintiff joined the Express Newspaper, a ‘policy statement’ was established which enjoined commitment to working with the Government of the day in doing what was considered to be in the national interest. There was also commitment to oppose those things thought contrary to the national interest. No doubt, these policies were fueled by the passions of men and women stepping out from under the yoke of colonialism, into the yet uncultivated fields of free and independent self determination, when the idealistic vision of creating truly participatory democratic nation states was clear and all consuming.

18 The plaintiff in his evidence admitted that while it was never the policy of the Express Newspaper, TV 6 or CCN to oppose or undermine any particular Government, or in particular the United National Congress (UNC) Government of which the defendant is Prime Minister, these media institutions have been critical of all Governments, including the UNC Government of the defendant. However, the plaintiff maintained, and there is no compelling evidence to the contrary, that these criticisms have always been on issues. He explained that in his opinion, “it is a fundamental responsibility of the newspaper to be critical of those things which it considers to be wrong.” He also explained that the ‘Editorial’ in a newspaper was the policy position of that newspaper and that the issues addressed in that column, reflected the position of a newspaper on the...