Howe v Montserrat Reporter Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Redhead, J.
• Judgment Date: 22 November 1990
• Neutral Citation: MS 1990 HC 1
• Docket Number: 89 of 1986
• Date: 22 November 1990

Howe

and

Montserrat Reporter Ltd. et al

Redhead, J.

89 of 1986

High Court

Damages — Libel — Action for defamation — Article claimed to be defamatory of plaintiff — Statement that Minister is financially indebted to Chief Minister and cannot oppose him is libellous — Defense of fair comment failed — Plaintiff entitled to damages in the sum of $30,000.

Redhead, J.

1 Margaret Dyer Howe, the plaintiff, began her working life as a Secretary. She attended the St. Augustine(s Primary School. In 1961 we went to the United States of America where she pursued a Secretarial Course for one year. At the end of which she was awarded a Diploma.

2 The plaintiff returned to Montserrat and was employed with the Government of Montserrat as Secretary to the Administrator. She then worked as Secretary to the Managing Director of the Montserrat company. The plaintiff got married to Michael Dyer (now deceased).

3 He worked in his business until 1972 when she joined the Montserrat Water Authority as Secretary. She remained there for about eleven (11) years and reached the position of Administration Officer.

4 In 1979 Joseph Taylor who had a seat in the Legislative Assembly died. His seat therefore became vacant. The plaintiff contested the seat in a by-election on the ticket of the then ruling peoples Liberation Movement (hereinafter referred to as the PLM). She won the seat in the by-election.

5 In 1983 there was a general election in Montserrat. The plaintiff again contested the same seat, the Southern Constituency, on the PLM ticket and was again successful. She was made Minister of Education, Health and Community Services. She was then a member of the Executive Council (EXCU). Her other Ministerial colleagues were John Alfred Osborne — Chief Minister, Noel Tuitt, Benjamin Chalmers and David Brandt. There were two member of the opposition.

6 Margaret Dyer Howe, in my opinion, performed creditably as Minister of Health and Community Services. She was very industrious. She entertain the view that she was well liked by her constituents. She introduced non-traditional skills for women in Montserrat CHECK TEXT HERE…. painting, tile laying and carpentry.

7 The plaintiff sought and obtained permission from the Executive Council to bring to Montserrat medical specialists with expertise in different areas of medicine to deliver free medical and dental care to the people of Montserrat. For that service she was awarded the Silver Medal by the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO). She also received a plaque from Partners in Progress, an American Organisation, for her contribution to health. Finally she was appointed alternate chairman, with the Governor of Montserrat, on the Narcotics Committee.

8 Having regard to the foregoing, I think that it can be fairly said that the plaintiff was a hard working Minister. Chief Minister, John Osborne described her as the best Minister of Health he has ever had.

9 In 1986, what was known as the “Little Bay Scandal” surfaced. Little Bay is situated on the North Eastern corner of the island and was earmarked for development as a tourist resort. It appears that there was much political controversy and public debate at the time, surrounding this affair. I think it is necessary for them to go into some details about the “Little Bay” affair because of the article which the plaintiff complains of emanated from the from the Little Bay Affair.”

10 As I said above, the Government of Montserrat wanted to develop the area as a tourist resort with hotels, casino and yacht marina. The Government was looking for investors to undertake the project. It appears that the Chief Minister of Montserrat was personally appointed with the task.

11 In or about August 1983, the Chief Minister entered into a contract on behalf of the Government with a Mr. Abdul Ismaili who headed a corporation called Rozah Enterprises Co. Inc. for the development of Little Bay. This agreement was supposed to be certified by the Executive Council of Montserrat. Before the agreement was ratified it appears that the Chief Minister entered into another agreement with Perini Corporation to develop Little Bay.

12 It seems to me that the main controversy centred around the allegedly sworn answers made by the Chief Minister to questions made on behalf of Perini Corporation who was at the time suing Rozah Corporation for breach of contract over the Little Bay contract.

13 I say allegedly sworn answers by the Chief Minister, because the document was purportedly sworn before one Audrey Marshall, Notary Public in Miami. The Chief Minister swore before the court that he had never met or seen anyone by the name of Audrey Marshall.

14 The Chief Minister said among other things in the sworn answers, that the Executive Council of Government approved the agreement in principle, with Rozah Corporation and they [Executive Council] informed Ismaili that it would be executed on 4th October, 1983. In addition, the Governor of Montserrat had written a memorandum which was circulated to the Executive Council members. The memorandum said in part:

A[The] Hon. Chief Minister, as head of Government swore and subscribed to a statement in the form of questions and answers before Audrey M. Marshall, Notary Public, State of Florida, who it is believed is Mr. Ismaili's attorney. This statement is in the hands of Perini's lawyers and Rozah Enterprises. There is an inaccuracy in the statement in that is says EXCO agreed the Rozah Agreement in principle, and that Mr. Ismaili was advised that the Agreement would be executed on 4 ^th October, 1983. EXCO minutes do not record such decision.@

15 In my view the above statement along with the fact that the Chief Minister had negotiated an agreement in principle with Rozah Corporation fuelled the controversy which surrounded the Little Bay Project. It is my view that there was some misunderstanding with regard to what the Chief Minister said in relation to the agreement being executed. The question was asked, “Did the Executive Council of Government approve the agreement?” To which the Chief Minister replied “Yes, in principle we did and we informed Mr. Ismaili that it would be executed on fourth October, 1983.”

16 Although the records do not show when the Chief Minister communicated to Ismaili that the agreement would be executed, it is logical to assume that this communication took place prior to October 1983 for the following reason:-

“The Chief Minister wrote “We informed Mr. Ismaili that it would be executed(

17 If the Chief Minister had communicated to Ismaili after October 1983 he would not have couched his reply in that language. The Chief Minister did not say it was executed on 4th October 1983. I therefore had so said, that would have been a different matter entirely. I therefore conclude that in my opinion, there was an unfortunate misinterpretation by the Governor and others that the Chief Minister said in relation to the execution of the agreement. This confusion in the Governor's mind is merely borne out when the Governor wrote:-

AEXCO minutes do not record such a decision.”

18 Mr. David Brandt, member of the Executive Council having become CHECK TEXT HERE…. the agreement in principle with Rozah Corporation, the memorandum of the Governor and other documents, summoned a meeting of all the executive members of Government. Mr. Brandt referred to the agreement of the Chief Minister with Rozah Corporation and he said that the actions of the Chief Minister were improper CHECK TEXT HERE…. that in the interest of good government the Chief Minister should resign.

19 The Chief Minister indicated that he had done nothing wrong because the agreement reached would be ratified by the Executive Council. He inquired from Mr. Brandt who would lead the party when he resigned. Mr. Brandt said that the plaintiff would lead. The plaintiff declined that suggestion by saying that she could not lead the party. On the suggestion of Mr. Chalmers a member of the Executive, it was agreed that that meeting should be adjourned to a wider meeting to include all caucus members of the party. About one month later, the meeting of the wider caucus was convened. Mr. David Brandt, however, did not attend the meeting. It appears from the evidence of the plaintiff that the discussion at that meeting centred around the Chief Minister not informing caucus members of the negotiations with Rozah Corporation. The plaintiff said in evidence:-

“The Caucus agreed that the allegations did not justify the dismissal of a chief Minister and reprimanded the Chief Minister that in future he should involve the Caucus into important matters.”

20 It is my view that there is a misconception of the role of the party in Government. The party does not govern the elected members of the. party, the Executive members, who govern the country. And it cannot be expected that the Chief Minister should inform or involve members of the party about negotiations which he is about to undertake. These negotiations may be delicate negotiations. Of course he should involve the executive members of his government about these negotiations.

21 At the Caucus meeting it was agreed that Ministries should make a public statement informing the public that the Chief Minister did not act improperly and was not “guilty” of the allegations made.

22 The Ministers, including the plaintiff, carried out the wishes of the caucus and went on Radio Montserrat arid made public statements in support of the Chief Minister.

23 The incidents, the Caucus Meeting, the Public Statements made on radio by the Ministers, all occurred in 1984. “On 23rd May 1986 the defendants wrote and published the article complained of by the plaintiff. The defendant Kenneth Cassell was writing a series of articles on political figures “Commentary and Analysis.”

24 In the article which the plaintiff complained of, it was headed “Commentary and Analysis Toward A Basic Dictatorship.” The...