Joseph v Lockhart

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: Lewis, C.J.,Gordon, J.,St. Bernard, J.
• Judgment Date: 17 February 1970
• Neutral Citation: AG 1970 CA 25
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1970
• Date: 17 February 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Gordon, J.A.; St. Bernard, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1970

Joseph

and

Lockhart

Damages - Defamation — Newspaper article in which respondent was said to have been advising Antiguans to “kill each other” — Damages of $5,000 awarded by High Court found by Court of Appeal to be modest — Appeal dismissed.

Lewis, C.J.

1 This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Louisy awarding 5,000,00 damages for a defamatory article published by the appellant in a newspaper called the (Workers' Voice” of which the appellant is Editor, in an issue of that newspaper on 12th July, 1967.

2 The words complained of occur in an Editorial under the heading “BREAKING THE SILENCE”.

3 There had been a split in the Union known as the Antigua Trades & Labour Union in the course of which some of their officers had been expelled from office and the respondent, who had been a member of that Union, then left the Union and assisted in his capacity as solicitor the expelled persons to commence another union; thereafter a series of meetings were held in the process of forming the new union and the respondent appeared on the platform of the new union.

4 “The Workers' Voice” is published by the Antigua Trades & Labour Union and in this Editorial of 12th July, the appellant referred to the fact that the respondent had left one union and gone to another, and referred to him as (a turncoat” who was not sincere in his former adherence to the Antigua Trades & Labour Union.

5 One might think that it is perhaps not so bad for equal blows in a struggle for power between two unions, but then the article went on to say that the respondent had been advising Antiguans to “kill each other” and that the Premier of the country and other members of the Cabinet “be removed from their posts by means of revolver bullets.”

6 Lower down it said that “Lockhart has said enough at Hawksbill Hotel and elsewhere to convince us that he intends to incite the people to bloodshed and violence” and the Government was asked to have him imprisoned and then deported.

7 The respondent wrote to the paper and asked for an apology; his letter was ignored; and the action was brought.

8 A defence was put in in which it was pleaded that the words were fair comment and that so far as they consisted of statements of fact, those facts were true and the rest were fair comment on a matter of public interest and written and published in good faith without any malice: “the rolled-up” plea.

9 When the case came on for hearing, the plaintiff gave evidence and put in the newspaper. Then, amazingly, this newspaper which had pleaded “the rolled-up” plea, elected not to give any evidence at all; nothing at all even to suggest that there was any basis upon which these very highly damaging remarks had been made and. published to the world. The learned trial...