Dean Jonas Claimant v James Rose aka Tanny Rose Defendant [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Mathurin, M,CHERYL MATHURIN,MASTER
• Judgment Date: 21 September 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] ECSC J0921-1
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2009/0221
• Date: 21 September 2011

[2011] ECSC J0921-1

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Before:

Master Cheryl Mathurin

CLAIM NO: ANUHCV2009/0221

Between:

Dean Jonas

Claimant

and

James Rose aka Tanny Rose

Defendant

RULING

Mathurin, M

1 During a broadcast on ZDK radio station on the 26^th May 2010, the defendant (Mr. Rose) made the following statements on a call in programme;

"Sly? Me call Minister Daniel this morning… and he tell me that he was down Cooks by the Prime Minister and if me can come down dey…

…them drop me down dey and we were discussing the whole question a de election. So me ask the PM what he is going to do…

But Sly, while I was there, me and Daniel, me see one fellar lakka he a hide; he no want me fu see he. He and Jackie dey, right, and he no want me fu see he 'tall… A Dean Jonas!… You na hear wha' me say? DEAN JONAS! Dean min down dey too."

2 The Claimant (Mr. Jonas) has claimed that the innuendo of the words is defamatory of the him, that he cannot be trusted, is a deceiver and traitor to the ALP and he is one clandestinely having political discussions with the senior members of the United Progressive Party. Mr. Jonas also states that the words complained of were published and broadcasted maliciously in that Mr. Rose was motivated by his political agenda and his strong dislike of him. The Claimant has not pleaded that the natural and ordinary use of the words alleged are defamatory, neither has he pleaded what they were capable of meaning in their natural and ordinary sense. The claim alleges defamation by innuendo and malice.

3 Mr. Rose has applied to have a ruling on whether the words are capable of the meanings of alleged in the Claim. He also asks that the Court make an order that the words relied on my Mr. Jonas do not bear a defamatory innuendo and that the Claim be struck out as an abuse of process and as disclosing no cause of action.

INNUENDO

4 Lord Hodson inLewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd (1963) 2 AER 151 at 165 referred to the area of innuendo in defamation cases and stated as follows;

"The true innuendo is that which depends on extraneous facts which the plaintiff has to prove in order to give the words the secondary meaning of which he complains."

Clearly with the advent ofThe Civil Procedure Rules 2000 which requires Parties to plead the facts on which they intend to rely to prove their case, these facts would have to be pleaded in order to be raised at trial. Specifically, Part 69.2 (a) of The Civil Procedure Rules 2000 requires that the Statement of Claim must, if the Claimant alleges that the words or matters complained of were used in a defamatory sense other than their ordinary meaning—give particulars of the facts and matters relied on in support of such sense. It is clear that Mr. Jonas would have to plead the particulars of the facts and matters relied on in support of a sense other than the ordinary meaning.

5 Counsel for Mr. Rose states that Mr. Jonas has pleaded no particulars or extrinsic facts in support of the allegation of defamatory innuendo raised in the claim. He refers to the case ofSlim v Daily Telegraph Ltd (1968) 1 AER 1237 wherein Salmon LJ stated the law in reference to innuendo.

"A "true" or "legal" innuendo is a meaning, which is different from the ordinary and natural meaning of the words, and defamatory because of special facts and circumstances known to those to whom the words are published. The ordinary meaning and innuendo give rise to different causes of action, and, accordingly, must be separately pleaded.

6 Counsel refers to Gatley onLibel And Slander, 10^th Edition, Para 3.18

"True Innuendo: extrinsic facts… "Such facts have also been referred to as "added", "extraneous" or "special" facts, or "something outside the words". They may, for instance, be the circumstances of publication, any accompanying gestures or expression or tone of voice, possibly slang or technical meaning or the meaning of a foreign language, or some additional fact which would allow those who knew it to read a defamatory meaning into the words published. The key point is that the matter is not merely one of general knowledge.

Counsel also refers to Gatley, Para 3.37;

"If the defamatory meaning arises indirectly by inference or implication from words published without the aid of extrinsic facts, there is said to be a "false" or "popular" innuendo and this does not give rise to a...