Ramadhar v Ramadhar and others (Trinidad and Tobago)

In defamation, meaning is determined objectively from the whole publication and its real context, including qualifications and the medium. Live oral political statements should be interpreted with understanding and generosity, while politicians must maintain accuracy and fairness. An appellate court may intervene where the trial meaning is outside reasonably available alternatives or rests on an error of law. Where words convey only that circumstances warrant investigation, the defence of truth requires proof of grounds for investigation, not proof that the claimant committed the alleged wrong or that reasonable grounds for suspicion existed. Conditional references to an investigation remain effective when read with accompanying criticism. Robust political criticism does not, without more, establish malice.

Mr Prakash Ramadhar, political leader of the Congress of the People, spoke at a televised press conference about an October letter purportedly signed by three party members and disclosing the party membership list to the opposition. He criticised the conduct but qualified his statements by referring to the letter’s uncertain authenticity and the need for an investigation.

The respondents sued for defamation. Kokaram J found the statements defamatory and rejected justification. The Court of Appeal majority affirmed, with Moosai JA dissenting. The central issues before the Board were the meaning of the statements, the effect of their qualifications and context, the level of truth required for justification, and whether malice had been established.

Appeal allowed. Lady Arden delivered the leading judgment, with Lord Wilson, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Briggs agreeing. Lady Black agreed separately.

1. The meaning of allegedly defamatory words is an objective question of fact, assessed from the totality of the circumstances and the perspective of the ordinary reasonable person. The publication must be read as a whole, with qualifications and the bane and antidote considered together. Context includes the medium and circumstances known to the ordinary audience. Live oral statements may be understood with a degree of generosity, although politicians speaking publicly must observe high standards of accuracy and fairness. The Board applied the guidance in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 and Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17; [2019] 2 WLR 1033.
2. An appellate court should not interfere merely because it prefers another meaning within the reasonably available range. It should intervene where the trial meaning is outside that range or vitiated by an error of law, and may determine meaning afresh or remit the matter.
3. Applying the three Chase levels identified in Chase v News Group Newspapers [2002] EWCA Civ 1772; [2003] EMLR 11, the statements conveyed no more than that there were grounds for investigating whether the respondents had written the letter and disclosed the membership list. This was Chase level 3. The appellant therefore had to prove grounds for investigation, not reasonable grounds for suspicion or actual responsibility for the alleged wrongdoing.
4. The trial judge failed to give proper weight to the qualifications, the live press-conference setting and the public interest in explaining events within a significant political party. The qualifications were not eliminated by the force of the accompanying criticism. The grounds for investigation were established by the letter’s apparent signatures and the National Council’s resolution for an investigation.
5. The statements, read as a whole, did not give rise to a necessary inference of an intention to harm. Robust political criticism, scrutiny and ridicule are not automatically defamatory or malicious. The judgments below were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

• Privy Council: Allowed Mr Prakash Ramadhar’s appeal.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: The majority dismissed the appeal from the trial judgment; Moosai JA dissented.
• High Court of Justice of Trinidad and Tobago: Kokaram J found the appellant liable in damages for defamation and rejected the defence of justification.