Former Bishops’ High School teacher Coen Jackson has been awarded $5 million in damages after winning a defamation suit he brought against writer Ruel Johnson over statements made about him in Facebook posts.
High Court Judge Navindra Singh, who presided over the action brought by Jackson, found yesterday that the statements he complained of were in fact defamatory
Jackson deposed in his claim that Johnson had made certain derogatory statements about him on Facebook that “have irrevocably damaged his reputation and has subjected him to public ridicule, contempt, hatred and embarrassment.”
In the Statement of Defence, Johnson (the Defendant) pleaded the defences of justification and fair comment but the Court, however, found that neither was established and as a result he could not rely on them.
Referencing the facts presented at trial, Justice Singh noted in his ruling that Johnson admitted that in posts concerning alleged sexual contact with minors, he was referring to Jackson and also that he had no verification of the statements, but nonetheless went ahead and published them.
Johnson also admitted that he had provided no names or statements from the “multiple victims” of Jackson he spoke of.
Citing a plethora of case law authorities in his analysis of whether the words used by Johnson were defamatory, Justice Singh said he found the use of the term by which the Defendant described Jackson (the Claimant) was defamatory.
Noting that Johnson had himself admitted to labeling Jackson in the manner that he did and failed to provide any evidence to substantiate, the judge said that the natural and ordinary meaning and/or inferential meaning of one of the labels used and the meaning that it would immediately convey to a reasonable reader was “that the Claimant (was) engaging in immoral and criminal practices.”
In addition to finding the use of that term to have been defamatory, the Court said it also found that the Defendant’s statement of the Claimant having been dismissed as a teacher from Bishops’ High School based on the Ministry’s investigation to have also been defamatory.
On the issue of whether the defence of fair comment could prevail, Justice Singh, again referencing legal authorities, said he found it could not, as Johnson failed to establish the required elements of the defence.
The judge said he found that Johnson’s publication clearly attacked Jackson’s character, without setting out, factually, any conduct of the Claimant that justified such a comment.
“There were clear imputations of fact which the Defendant failed to substantiate at the trial and, therefore, the Court finds that the defence of fair comment is not available to the Defendant,” the judge said.
With respect to the defence of justification, the judge noted from legal precedent that the basis of the defence is a claim that the statement is one of truth.
The judge said he found that “the Defendant failed to produce one iota of evidence” to support his claims.
The judge reasoned that on the evidence, the word used to describe the Claimant and the assertion that he was dismissed, could not possibly be considered to be justified.
“The word and statements are therefore defamatory of the Claimant and would tend to lower his standing in society in the estimation of right-thinking members of society,” Justice Singh said.
In assessing the appropriate quantum of damages, the judge said he considered, among other things, that the libel attacked Jackson’s “personal integrity and professional reputation,” and that the accusation made against him while serving as a high school teacher made it “very grave.”
In addition, Justice Singh said the nature of the libel was bound to cause distress, hurt and humiliation to the Claimant, while noting its dissemination via Facebook on which he said Johnson testified to having about 5,000 followers.
“It is also a well-established and accepted fact that material published on the World Wide Web is available for public consumption for eternity,” the judge said.
Further, Justice Singh said he considered the manner in which Johnson’s pleaded the defences through which he further cast aspersions on Jackson’s character, knowing that he (Johnson) was not in possession of evidence to substantiate his pleadings.
The Court also highlighted that Johnson had not apologized or expressed any regret over the publication of the libel, while noting “the need to re-establish and vindicate the Claimant’s reputation.”
In all of the circumstances, the judge awarded damages in the sum of $5,000,000, which he said also includes an assessment of aggravated damages for which interest is to be paid at a rate of 6% per annum from March 5, 2019, when the action was filed, to yesterday when the judgment was rendered. Anytime thereafter, Justice Singh ordered that interest is to be paid at a rate of 4% per annum until fully paid.
Court costs were also imposed against Johnson in the sum of $1,000,000, which has to be paid on or before January 7th 2022.
Jackson was represented by attorneys Nigel Hughes and Savannah Barnwell, while Johnson was represented by attorney Ganesh Hira.
Four years ago, Jackson was at the centre of police investigations into alleged sexual grooming. He would later be committed to stand trial on a charge of sexual activity with a child.
His trial is yet to commence before the High Court.
