Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack SC has filed an application seeking to have struck out, the more than $50M suit for damages for defamation brought against her by Magistrate Alex Moore.
In her notice of application, the DPP contends among other things that Magistrate Moore’s action discloses no reasonable ground for bringing the claim, that it is an abuse of the process of the court, and that it is “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.”
The DPP wants an order staying the proceedings into Magistrate Moore’s challenge until her application would have been fully heard and determined. She also wants court costs and any further relief the court deems just to grant.
In his statement of claim dated July 22nd, 2020, Magistrate Moore is seeking damages in excess of $50M for what he said was the defaming of his character by the DPP without any reasonable or probable cause.
He complains of a letter written by the DPP to acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards and acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire which he said contained the alleged defamatory statements made against him.
In that correspondence of December 5th, 2019, Magistrate Moore says that the DPP “falsely and maliciously” wrote and published of and concerning him, defamatory content.
The DPP’s complaint to the Chancellor and Chief Justice surrounds a request for Magistrate Moore’s removal as the Magistrate conducting the preliminary inquiry (PI) into a murder indictment which had been levelled against former murder accused Marcus Bisram for the murder of Faiyaz Narinedatt.
The DPP in her application sought to argue that the complaint against Magistrate Moore was an official act within her competence as an officer of the State, directed to another officer of the State in regard to matters of public interest to both her and the Chancellor, regarding matters confidential and privileged and could not therefore be made the subject of legal proceedings.
The DPP said that Magistrate Moore by the nature of his pleadings on the face of it has demonstrated what she described as a perfectly good defence for her, in that it shows that the communication was “absolutely privileged,” apart from other defences he disclosed.
She said that those defences entitle her to have Magistrate Moore’s action dismissed summarily as affording no reasonable ground for bringing the claim against her in the first place.
The DPP is contending also that Magistrate Moore’s challenge is contrary to public policy by seeking through defamatory claims to “intimidate” or prevent the process of a complaint against the conduct of magistrates and particularly in relation to a disciplinary consideration by members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of the actions of any member of the magistracy including Magistrate Moore (the claimant).
Referencing Magistrate Moore’s acknowledgment of her being head of the prosecutorial arm of the State, Ali-Hack said he therefore by extension recognizes that he has sued her in her professional capacity as holder of the office of DPP and not in her personal capacity.
On this point she said that her office is an independent constitutional one recognized under Articles 116 and 187 of the Constitution and for which she would be patently entitled to the protection of Sections 8 and 14 of the Justice Protection Act, and to the benefit of the operation of Section 3 (4) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act.
The DPP deposed that the letter in question of which Magistrate Moore complains of containing defamatory statements against him dealt with a request for his removal from conducting Bisram’s PI due to certain observations Prosecutor Stacy Goodings had made.
The DPP said that her letter to the Chancellor and Chief Justice intended no malice against Magistrate Moore.
In addition, she said that the Chancellor is the Chairperson of the JSC which is the supervising authority for the Magistracy including Magistrate Moore against whom the Commission is entitled to exercise discipline or remove any magistrate upon complaint.
According to the DPP, her letter contains among other things, complaints and allegation of misconduct against Magistrate Moore in his professional capacity and not in his personal capacity and was therefore capable of being investigated by the Chancellor for purposes of invoking the disciplinary procedures set out in the JSC’s Rules.
Further, the DPP said that her letter to the Chancellor was an act carried out by her as DPP and intended to be delivered to the Chancellor in her office as Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chairperson of the JSC and was clearly understood by Magistrate Moore to be in those capacities or alternatively a reasonable inference to so be.
Magistrate Moore is being represented by attorney Arudranauth Gossai.
