High Court dismisses 'Presidential wine' defamation lawsuit

Justice Robin Mohammed -

The High Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former presidential aide Pramati Noe, her husband, Antonio Piccolo, and their company, Italian Import & Export Ltd, against the Trinidad Express Newspapers Ltd.

Justice Robin Mohammed ruled that the articles complained of were not defamatory and were protected under the principle of responsible journalism.

The case stemmed from five Express articles published between September 21 and September 29, 2016, alleging that Noe and Piccolo’s company supplied wine to then-President Anthony Carmona’s official residence, and that Noe was dismissed as his private secretary after just ten months of employment.

Noe, who served as the President’s private secretary from 2013 to 2016, claimed the reports falsely implied cronyism and misconduct, damaging her reputation and that of her company. The Express denied defamation, asserting the stories were in the public interest and fell under the defence of Reynolds privilege, which protects fair and responsible reporting on matters of public concern.

In a written ruling on November 5, Justice Mohammed ruled that the claimants had failed to properly identify the exact words they considered defamatory, noting that they instead summarised alleged falsehoods without quoting specific passages.

The judge also found that while two of the articles could suggest impropriety, a later report – which included President Carmona’s public denial of any wrongdoing by Noe or her company – effectively “removed the defamatory sting.”

“While the President did not state who was the local agent that purchased the wine for the President’s House, the defendant accurately reported the President’s exoneration of the claimants from any wrongful conduct with respect to the wine purchase.

“In the court’s view, when this article (the fifth article) is read together with the others, it had the effect of removing the defamatory sting from the previous statements.

“As such, in reading all the articles as a whole, the court was not satisfied that they conveyed the defamatory meaning as alleged by the claimants.”

Justice Mohammed said even if the articles were defamatory, the Express’ journalists had acted responsibly, relying on credible sources, attempting to obtain comment from the claimants, and reporting on a legitimate issue concerning procurement practices at the Office of the President.

Justice Mohammed concluded that “the defendant’s publications reported on matters of public interest and its journalists exercised responsible journalism,” dismissing the claim in full and ordering costs payable to the media house.

“The court was not persuaded that there was anything untoward surrounding the

circumstances of the defendant’s publication of the articles.

“The articles were reported on the heels of the publication of the Auditor General’s report, which raised questions about the procurement practices at the President’s House.

“Shortly thereafter, the journalists received further information from their sources, which informed of the matters they reported in the articles.

“When the court considered all the factors in the round, I was satisfied that the defendant’s publications reported on matters of public interest and its journalists exercised responsible journalism.

“I, therefore, find that even if the articles were defamatory of Ms Noe, the defendant was protected by the defence of Reynolds privilege.”

Noe, her husband and their company were represented by Prakash Maharaj and Aliyyah Khan. Fairies Hosein and Carolyn Ramjohn-Hosein represented the Trinidad Express newspapers.