Holder v Baronville

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Court: High Court (British Virgin Islands)
• Judge: Joseph, J.
• Judgment Date: 06 July 1983
• Neutral Citation: VG 1983 HC 3
• Docket Number: Civil Justice No. 59 of 1982
• Date: 06 July 1983

High Court of Justice

Joseph, J

Civil Justice No. 59 of 1982

Holder

and

Baronville

Appearances:-

Mr. Edgar Hewlett for the plaintiff.

Mr. Gerard Farara for the defendant.

Libel and Slander - Slander — Qualified Privilege

Facts: The plaintiff was a constable in the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force. The defendant was a Sargent, there was a disagreement between the parties. The defendant told the plaintiff that she had heard that he was a marijuana smoker and that she was preparing to report him to a senior officer. The statement was made in the presence of four other police officers and a secretary.

Held: The words imputed that the plaintiff was unfit to hold the office of constable. Elements to establish the defence of qualified privilege were not present. Statement not made for purpose of detecting and bringing crime to punishment — Words published because of anger. Judgment for plaintiff. Damages of $5,000 awarded.

Joseph, J.

1 The plaintiff and the defendant are officers in the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force. The plaintiff is a Constable and the defendant is a sargeant.

2 The plaintiff is seeking damages arid an injunction against the defendant in respect of an alleged slander of the defendant. The words as set out in the plaintiff's statement of claim are: “Constable, I am preparing a charge against you; I am only waiting to carry you before the Chief of Police. I hear that you go up by Chucks and smoke marijuana.” which words the plaintiff claims are calculated to disparage the plaintiff in the office he holds.

3 The defendant in her defence makes no admission that the words as alleged were spoken and pleads that the occasion on which the actual words spoken was an occasion of qualified privilege, in that the statement was made bona fides in the prosecution of an enquiry into a suspected crime and in the course of the defendant's enquiries into a suspected crime for the purpose of detecting the criminal and bringing him to punishment.

4 There is an admission in the defence that the words were published in the presence of four other police officers and a Mrs. Lettsome who was at the time a secretary at Police Headquarters and who was accidentally present.

5 On 6th May 1982 at 7.00 a.m. the plaintiff reported for duty as station orderly at the police guard desk, Police Headquarters, Road Town.

6 About 1:30 p.m. a complaint, the subject matter of which is not relevant to this case, was made by one Olima Farrington at the guard desk. The plaintiff told P.C. Donovan, a recruit, to take the report and to put it in narrative form.

7 The defendant, who had reported for duty at 9:30 that morning, told the plaintiff to take the report because as she said “You all don't teach him (meaning P.C. Donovan) anything,” The plaintiff replied that Constable Donovan could take the report as he had taken other reports. The defendant told the plaintiff that although he went to training school he did not know anything, Whereupon the plaintiff said “A lot of us in here don't know anything either.”

8 It was at this point that the alleged defamatory words were spoken. The plaintiff stated that the defendant said: “Constable I have prepared a charge against you. I am only waiting to carry you before the Chief of Police because you goes up by Chuck and smoke marijuana.”

9 Constable Blackman stated that what he heard the defendant say was: “Constable I have prepared a charge against you. I am only waiting to carry you before the Chief of Police because you does go up by Chuck and smoke marijuana.” and Constable Donovan heard: “I have a charge against you, I will report you to the Chief of Police. I hear that you does be up by Chucks smoking marijuana”.

10 He admitted however that the defendant might have said “am only waiting to carry you before the Chief of Police.”

11 The defendant stated that after the plaintiff said “a lot of us in here don't know anything either”, she told the plaintiff she would not stand for any more of his rudeness or she would prepare a charge against him. She stated: “I also told P.C. Holder when the Deputy Chief of Police comes back I will tell him that I heard he does go by Chuck and smoke marijuana.”

12 It is very rarely that words alleged to be spoken by a defendant are reported verbatim by witnesses. It is necessary to ascertain whether the variance between the versions is of substance.

13 In all the versions of the alleged defamatory words spoken by the defendant, the substance of the allegation is that the plaintiff smokes marijuana at Chucks (a restaurant) and that a report to a senior officer is being prepared or had been prepared, relative to the smoking of marijuana.

14 I am of the view that the variance between the versions is not of substance and that the words are defamatory as they impute to the plaintiff the commission of a crime punishable by imprisonment — The relevant ordinance being the Drugs ( Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance 1977 (No. 8 of...