PEP leader to challenge Imbert defamation lawsuit at Privy Council

PEP political leader Phillip Edward Alexander. - File photo

POLITICAL Leader of the Progressive Empowerment Party Phillip Edward Alexander has been allowed to take his challenge of a judge’s order – requiring him to pay Public Utilities Minister Colm Imbert $525,000 in damages for defamation – to the Privy Council.

On April 16, Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, Maria Wilson and Ronnie Boodoosingh granted Alexander conditional leave to appeal to the UK-based court.

Rajkumar said while some of the arguments raised by Alexander’s attorney Gregory Armorer did not reach the threshold of disputable issues, his complaint on the evaluation of the alleged defamatory statements by the High Court and the Court of Appeal might affect quantum (of damages) using what is known as the Chase analysis in defamation claims. This refers to three levels of defamatory meaning to determine the severity of defamation and the amount of damages awarded.

Imbert had sued Alexander over a series of posts on Facebook, published between February 29 and March 1, 2020.

In October 2023, after High Court judge Jacqueline Wilson delivered her ruling. She said Alexander's statements did not meet the criteria of fair comment. She found Alexander failed to "establish that the steps he had taken to gather and publish the information were responsible and fair. "

She said, "Although there is a significant public interest in determining that foreign exchange reserves are distributed in a fair and transparent manner, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that he took reasonable steps to verify that the allegations made against the claimant were true.

“The tone of the publications was neither measured nor circumspect but may be labelled as cavalier or even dramatic."

Alexander appealed, and on February 12, Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Ronnie Boodoosingh and Geoffrey Henderson held that Wilson’s findings were “unassailable.”

Justice Mohammed had said, “Respectfully, we are not persuaded that the trial judge materially erred by failing to adopt an impressionistic interpretation of the seven publications involved (or) by failing to examine and evaluate each of the seven publications separately and apart from the other publications and in isolated compartments.”

Mohammed said even if the court was not correct in its conclusion, and while they were not required to look at the matter afresh, their conclusion “would be the same as that of the trial judge.”

He said there was “compelling justification” to examine the seven postings collectively, not separately, as argued by Armorer.

“Mr Armorer’s submissions are respectfully a highly technical one, which cannot withstand scrutiny against the backdrop of the specific and actual context of this case.”

In deciding the appeal, the judge said they could not look at the posts separately because of the “very narrow window involved” – approximately 24 hours – the medium used and the “manifest interrelation of the posts.”

“Even if required to view the posts individually, most of them, in our view, would carry defamatory meaning.”

On the issue of damages, the judges said, “Having regard to the nature of the defamation, it is not inordinately high.”

At the appeal, Armorer argued that the judge’s analysis of the evidence was flawed. Senior Counsel Russell Martineau and Jason Mootoo represented Imbert.