Finding that now former Attorney General Basil Williams SC had slandered his then predecessor Anil Nandlall SC over allegations of law reports being stolen from the AG’s Chambers, a High Court judge has awarded Nandlall damages to the tune of $10m.
In her written ruling delivered yesterday, Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry said it was clear that Williams intended to, among other things, label Nandlall a thief; which was defamatory to him.
Citing a plethora of case law authorities, and in deference to video recording evidence and published news articles, the Judge said that “the inescapable conclusion is that the words published by the Defendant (Williams) meant, and could only mean, in their natural and ordinary meaning that the Claimant (Nandlall) is dishonest; is a thief; committed the criminal offence of larceny; stole property of the State; stole law books; is unfit to be a member of the legal profession; is unfit to be a Member of Parliament; is unfit to be a public figure and a potential leader.”
The Judge then went on to say “it was the considered view of this Court that the Claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that the Defendant published the defamatory words complained of.”
The Judge noted that applying the principles laid down in legal authorities, the Court has had to give the various publications their natural and ordinary meanings to examine whether they were capable of conveying to the ordinary reasonable reader, what would amount to the slander.
Justice Sewnarine-Beharry so found.
She then went on to find that Williams could not rely on the defences of justification and fair comment.
On this point she noted in her ruling that while Williams denied that he published the words complained of; but admitted to only saying that Nandlall “could be prosecuted for larceny of the Commonwealth Law Reports”, there was evidence to prove otherwise.
The Court on this point placed heavy reliance on the video recording tendered into evidence, which Justice-Beharry said showed Williams “uttering the defamatory statements,” in an interview with the press.
She then went on to point out that Williams led no evidence to contradict the account of his published statements that were recorded and published and broadcast in the media.
The Judge said that the essence of the defence of justification is that the statements published are true.
Referencing case law precedent, she said; “under the defence of truth, if a publication contains defamatory statements both of fact and of opinion, then the defendant must prove that the statements of fact are true and that the statements of opinion are correct.”
The Judge said, however, that Williams failed to produce even an iota of evidence, that Nandlall misused public funds, breached the Financial Management and Accounting Act 2003, the Financial Expenditure Procurement process or Stores Laws and Regulations.
Meanwhile, regarding the defence of fair comment on which Williams also sought to rely, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry noted the legal principle as being thus: “In a case where the facts are fully set out in the alleged libel, each fact must be justified and if the defendant fails to justify one, even if it be comparatively unimportant, he fails in his defence.
Justice Sewnarine-Beharry said that Nandlall’s evidence as a whole, particularly that the government had taken over the payment arrangements he had with Lexis Nexis (U.K) in relation to the law reports during his tenure as AG; had not been discredited and remained “competent, cogent and compelling.”
She then went on to note, however, that Williams repeated categorically in absolute and unqualified terms that Nandlall committed a criminal offence, that is, he “stole government property”.
The Judge said that Williams made assertions of fact and not comments when he published the defamatory statements of and concerning Nandlall; while stating that he (Williams), had failed to prove the existence of facts which would justify the comment.
“As such, he cannot avail himself of this defence,” the Judge asserted.
In determining the quantum of damages to be awarded, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry cited the legal principle that the successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as will compensate him for the wrong he has suffered.
That sum she noted, “must compensate him for the damage to his reputation; vindicate his good name; and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused.”
In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to reputation she said, the most important factor is the gravity of the libel; noting that the more closely it touches the plaintiff’s personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be.
The extent of the publication she said, is also very relevant: as a libel published to millions, has a greater potential to cause damage than a libel published to a handful of people.
Among the factors considered the Judge said, were that the defamatory statements attacked the Claimant’s reputation and professional standing; were bound to cause considerable distress, anxiety and public humiliation.
She pointed out, too, that prior to Williams publishing the defamatory statements both Nandlall and then President Donald Ramotar issued public statements explaining Nandlall’s terms of employment which catered for the special arrangement of him owning the law reports.
In all the circumstances, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry said that damages would be awarded to Nandlall in the sum of $10,000,000.
She further ordered that interest is to be paid on that sum, at a rate of 6% per annum from 4th, 2017 to June 29th, 2023 and 4% per annum thereafter until fully paid.
The Judge also awarded Nandlall costs in the sum of $1,650,000 to be paid by Williams no later than August 18th, 2023.
Background
In his action against Williams, Nandlall was seeking damages in excess of one hundred and twenty-five million dollars.
The lawsuit stemmed from allegations made by Williams about Nandlall’s acquisition of Commonwealth Law Reports while he served as the Attorney General under the PPP/C government.
The criminal charges against Nandlall were discontinued on October 16th, 2020 upon the directions of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
He was charged and placed before the Magistrates’ Court with fraudulently converting over $2 million in the reports.
The charge against Nandlall before the lower court was that between May 8th, 2015 and May 29th, 2015, at Georgetown, being a bailee and Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs and having 14 Law Reports of the Commonwealth, valued at $2,313,853 and property of the Ministry, he fraudulently took or converted them to his own use and benefit.
Back in November of 2017, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry threw out Nandlall’s defamation suit, owing to his attorneys not keeping case-management dates set by the court, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Nandlall had, however, said that Williams’ victory would be short-lived, signalling that he would appeal; arguing that the case was not determined on its merits.
He had told this newspaper that he would be appealing the matter because extensions of time in similar circumstances are granted regularly by judges.
