"Court rules the words can be defamatory"
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts, April 26, 2010 (PAM Secretariat) - On Friday 23rd, April in Chambers, Justice Belle delivered his judgment in relation to Suit No 241 and Suit No 246 of 1993 CEDRIC LIBURD v EUGENE HAMILTON and DENZIL DOUGLAS v EUGENE HAMILTON. The trial of these consolidated matters had already been set down for trial by jury - on Monday 26th April. You will recall that I took action against these two gentlemen for taking liberty with me in 1993 over the fact that I introduced a program of Comprehensive Medical Insurance covering all public servants. Between August and November 1993 both gentlemen spoke at Public Meetings and one penned an article in the Labour Spokesman - propagating a tissue of lies that I felt then and still do now, have done tremendous harm to my reputation and my character.
The action brought has taken some 16 years to reach the point of trial mainly because the Defendants hid behind a legal stratagem that they wanted a trial by jury. Trial by jury in a civil matter has not been practiced in this jurisdiction for as long as anyone can remember. With the introduction of new rules by the court known as CPR 2000, the Court took responsibility to manage all cases.
My cases were therefore picked up under these rules and have gone through a series of hearings of application after application to vacate trial dates. My case has also gone through the process of mediation in the year 2006.
In December 2009 the Court made the determination that a jury would be empaneled and trial would be set during the April 2010 window. The Judge in December gave a ruling that the Court would determine if the words allegedly spoken by the Defendants were capable for defamation as a matter of law and that he would deliver his decision on that point in January 2010 leaving the matters of damages to the jury.
In his decision on Friday, Justice Belle stated that he finds that the words allegedly spoken by Cedric Liburd and Denzil Douglas are capable of a defamatory meaning. He noted a difference between the words attributed Cedric Liburd and those attributed to Denzil Douglas. Stating that Denzil Douglas used the word “corrupt” while Cedric Liburd did not. In the case of Liburd therefore the judge pointed out that there was also a innuendo that must be connected at the trial with specific facts pleaded by me in 1993.
While in December 2009, Denzil Douglas failed to appear before the Court, he was present on Friday with his lawyers and Cedric Liburd was also present with his lawyers. On Friday, at the trial I learnt that Denzil Douglas had filed an Application to vacate the trial date of 26th April once again.
The case continues on Monday when the Judge will hear any Applications before him for vacating the date of the trial which has been set for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
