The High Court of Justice has refused to strike out portions of Prime Minister Gaston Browne’s defense in a defamation case filed by prominent attorney G.A. Dwyer Astaphan.
The case, filed under claim number ANUHCV2023/0336, centers on allegations of defamation stemming from statements made by Browne during a radio broadcast.
G.A. Dwyer Astaphan, the claimant, accused Prime Minister Gaston Browne of making defamatory statements about him on a radio program that was also streamed online.
Astaphan, who has a history of public service in St. Kitts and Nevis, argued that these statements had severely damaged his reputation, leading to public ridicule and personal distress.
In his defense, Browne admitted to making the statements but contended that his comments were expressions of opinion and constituted fair comment on matters of public interest.
Astaphan subsequently filed an application seeking to strike out paragraphs 3(b), 3(c), and 4 of Browne’s defense, arguing that these sections failed to meet the legal standards for a defamation defense and should therefore be dismissed.
The court, presided over by Justice Michel, delivered its decision on May 21, 2024.
JOIN THE WHATS APP GROUP HERE
Justice Michel outlined the stringent criteria for striking out parts of a legal defense, emphasizing that such an action is reserved for the clearest cases where the defense has no real prospect of success.
The judge referenced established legal principles and previous rulings, notably the necessity for the court to assume that the facts alleged in the defense are true unless they are manifestly incapable of proof.
Browne’s defense argued that the statements made were his opinions and thus qualified as fair comment on matters of public interest.
The court noted that fair comment is a complete defense to defamation if it applies, requiring the defendant to show that the statements were based on true facts or privileged information and were objectively fair.
Astaphan’s counsel argued that Browne had improperly invoked the privilege of the right to reply without meeting the necessary conditions. However, Browne’s counsel clarified that the defense was based on fair comment, not the right to reply.
The court found that the paragraphs in question provided sufficient factual context for Browne’s opinions, thereby supporting his defense of fair comment.
The court highlighted the requirements under the Civil Procedure Rules for a defense to outline all the facts relied upon to dispute the claim.
Justice Michel concluded that Browne’s defense met these requirements by detailing the basis of his opinions and addressing the allegations made by Astaphan.
Justice Michel ultimately refused to strike out the contested paragraphs of Browne’s defense, ruling that there was a sufficient basis for the defense to proceed.
The decision underscores the high threshold for striking out parts of a defense in defamation cases and reinforces the importance of allowing fair comment on matters of public interest.
The case will continue, with both parties preparing to present their arguments in full at trial.
JOIN THE WHATS APP GROUP HERE
JOIN THE WHATS APP GROUP HERE
JOIN THE WHATS APP GROUP HERE
JOIN THE WHATS APP GROUP HERE
JOIN THE WHATS APP GROUP HERE
JOIN THE WHATS APP GROUP HERE
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua! We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.Contact us at [email protected]
