MS v CH

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mr. Justice Frank Seepersad
• Judgment Date: 16 August 2022
• Neutral Citation: TT 2022 HC 192
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: Claim No.: CV2020-00493

Between

MS

Claimant

and

CH

Defendant

Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Frank Seepersad

Claim No.: CV2020-00493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

1. Mr. K. Chesney, Ms. C. Stewart and Ms. K. Samdeo, Attorneys-at-law for the Claimant.

2. Mr. T. Singh, Attorney-at-law for the Defendant.

ORAL DECISION REDUCED INTO WRITING

1 Before the Court for its determination is the Claimant's Claim Form and Statement of Case filed on 5 February 2020 wherein the Claimant sought the following reliefs:

• a. Damages for libel inclusive of aggravated and exemplary damages;

• b. Interest thereon as the Court may deem fit;

• c. Cost;

• d. Such further and/other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit.

2 The Defendant also filed a counterclaim in the Defence filed on 7 March 2020 seeking the following reliefs:

• a. Damages for libel inclusive of aggravated and exemplary damages for defamation;

• b. Interest thereon as the Court may deem fit;

• c. Costs;

• d. Such further/and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit.

The Claimant's Facts:

3 The Claimant was at all material times a serving member of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS). The Defendant was at all material times a member of the TTPS and a participant in the WhatsApp group chat titled “Central Watch”.

4 The Defendant's mobile telephone number was known to the Claimant and she saved same on her phone.

5 The WhatsApp group had more than 211 participants many of whom were members of the TTPS.

6 On 31 January 2020 while using the group chat the Claimant commented on a message sent by another member which referenced an officer who had been arrested. None of the comments referred to the Defendant in any way.

7 The Defendant responded to the Claimant's message in the following manner:

“I does beg to work section I does get stink transfer and take it just like many others in this division. And fly by night detective you cant talk about me you aint ready you fuck to work in the task force I does work I could solve crime homer looking. You getting personal. Study because ah two police in longendville you get away from case with your big bandit man”. (Emphasis added)

8 The Claimant contends that the natural and ordinary meanings and/or implications conveyed that she:

• a. Rendered sexual favours to obtain her position in the Task Force of the TTPS;

• b. Was a criminal and narrowly avoiding prosecution;

• c. Was involved in criminal activity with her significant other.

9 The Claimant contends that the Defendant's words disparaged her professionally and as a woman. Her reputation, she says, was seriously damaged and she suffered considerable distress and embarrassment. She claims that she was shunned by fellow law enforcement officers and became a victim of hatred and ridicule.

The Defendant's Facts:

10 The Defendant pleaded that on another group chat he was well known as “Homer Simpson” because of his body structure and a meme which was shared since in or around 2016. The Claimant had knowledge and sight of same as it was shared in that group chat at that time.

11 On 31 January 2020 at 2:21 pm the Claimant posted on the WhatsApp chat the following words “this homer Simpson humpty dumpty fly by night detective does quick to jump 2 d defence of his friend and cant do a proper investigation. Talking abt exemplary when yuh name always calling in shit… when u learn to stop touch ppl thing and beg to work in section and stop perjure in court them open yr mouth damn idiot”.

12 The Defendant contends that by the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used the Claimant implied that he was incompetent and/or unprofessional and not fit to hold the post as an investigator within the Criminal Investigations Department. In addition, the words were understood to mean that he was involved in unlawful and/or unethical and/or improper and/or immoral acts, was a thief and/or interferes unlawfully with the property of others and he lied in court under oath.

13 The Claimant at 2:39 pm on the same day posted the following words, “Besides where did I call yr name but typical smart u jump out yourself. U will learn today trust me. Make some new suits and ready yourself”. The Defendant pleaded that by virtue of these statements the Claimant accepted that her comments were made maliciously.

The Messages:

14 This Court labelled and referenced the relevant messages as follows:

a. Message A was posted by Sergeant LB at 2:19 pm, “Policeman in court on four charges A policeman based in Central Division appeared in court on Wednesday charged with four offences. The officer, who gained some notoriety as a singer, was charged with two counts of making use of an unregistered license plate. The charges were laid via summons and will be recalled on August 5.”

b. Message B was posted by the Claimant at 2:24 pm: “Is best to shut your mouth on this chat before u get case cuz this homer Simpson humpty dumpty fly by night detective does quick to jump 2 d defence of his friend and cant do a proper investigation. Talking abt exemplary when yuh name always calling in shit. Look eh give me a break eh. When u learn to stop touch ppl thing and beg to work in section and stop perjure in court them open yr mouth damn idiot.”

c. Message C was posted by the Defendant at 2:38 pm: “ I does beg to work section I does get stink transfer and take it just like many others in this division. and fly by night detective you cant talk about me you aint ready you fuck to work in the task force i does work i could solve crime homer looking. You getting personal. Study because ah two police in longdenville you get away from case with yuh big bandit man.”

15 Each party invited the Court to hold that the WhatsApp messages they respectively complained about were defamatory as outlined above.

The Evidence:

16 The Court heard evidence from the Claimant, the Defendant, WPC AJ, Sergeant LB and PC DJ. The material evidence for the determination of the issues in this matter however came from the Claimant and the Defendant.

17 The Claimant testified that she was a member of the chat group. She worked with the Defendant, WPC AJ, Sgt. LB and PC DJ and she knew the Defendant since 2015. This witness stated that Message B, which she posted on the chat at 2:24 pm, was in response to Message A which was posted by Sgt. LB. The Claimant testified that when she posted, “is best you shut your mouth” this was in response to Sgt. LB's message and she was speaking in general terms. The use of the term “Homer Simpson” was also general in nature and was not directed at the Defendant.

18 With respect to the WhatsApp messages which were posted to the group in January 2019 between Sgt LB and CH, the witness maintained that she was not referring to the Defendant when she authored and posted Message B. The witness also denied knowing the Defendant as Homer Simpson and she accepted that her partner was arrested but not convicted for money laundering in 2017.

19 WPC AJ testified that she knew the Claimant for approximately 9 years and worked with her for approximately 1 year. She said that she was friends of both the Claimant and Defendant but she did not know the Defendant as Homer Simpson.

20 The Defendant accepted in cross-examination that he sent the Message C on the WhatsApp group and admitted that the message was directed to the Claimant. He denied that his intention was to embarrass the Claimant but he stated that at the time he authored and posted the message he was speaking out of anger. When the Court asked the Defendant if he was suggesting that the Claimant slept with persons to be transferred to the task force, he responded that, at the time, he believed so and also felt that she was not competent to work in the task force. The Defendant also testified that he did not apologise to the Claimant. He maintained that he was widely known as Homer Simpson and when asked by the Court, he accepted that Message B did not reference him by name.

21 Sgt. LB testified that he was familiar with both the Claimant and the Defendant. He agreed that he sent the messages in January 2019 directed to the Defendant for lying to the Couva magistrate. He agreed that the Defendant misrepresented to the court with respect to the January 2019 messages and he testified that the Defendant is known as Homer Simpson.

The Issues:

22 Before the Court for its determination are the following issues:

• a. Whether messages on private chats can be used to establish liability in libel.

• b. Whether Message B was defamatory of the Defendant;

• c. Whether Message C was defamatory of the Claimant.

Resolution of the Issues:

23 It is not lost upon the Court that during the course of the proceedings five police officers testified. This is against a backdrop where the country faces a crime crisis. Instead of these officers discharging their obligations pursuant to their respective oaths, they have had to put aside their work obligations to testify about messages posted on a work chat group. This underlies the importance of the issues at hand and the need to review and regulate the use of social media as an abuse which can impact not only people's personal lives but national life as well.

24 There seems to be in this Republic a lack of appreciation as to how social media ought to be used. It is difficult to comprehend the inability or unwillingness to understand the unassailable fact that what is placed on chat forums is not private. After the send button has been pressed and the message read the author loses all control over the post.

25 There is no dispute as to the existence of the Central Watch chat group. Both the Claimant and Defendant were members of same and there was an exchange of messages. The evidence also clearly establishes that Message B was authored and posted by the Claimant and she candidly accepted same. The Defendant also readily...