Mirror to pay $150,000 for contempt of court

In passing judgment, however, Justice Gregory Smith, presiding in the Port-of-Spain Sixth Civil Court, did not order an alternative if the fines were not paid, nor did he order cost. The parties will return to court today to bring closure to the case. The contempt proceedings were filed after the Mirror breached an order of the court.

The drama unfolded when the Hindu Credit Union (HCU) sought and obtained an ex-parte injunction from Justice Peter Jamadar on Republic Day — September 24, 2004, restraining the Mirror newspapers from publishing articles about the financial affairs of the credit union. On October 1, 2004, the Mirror published an article "HCU Terror Tactic" and followed it up seven days later with "Dookeran warned HCU." After the articles, HCU filed for contempt of court against the Mirror, the managing director, and editor.

HCU was represented by Frank Solomon SC, Marsha Mohammed, and Devesh Maharaj, while Sonny Maharaj SC, Ronald Dowlat, and Vashiest Maharaj appeared for the Mirror.

In his oral judgment yesterday, Smith disagreed with the Mirror’s attorneys that the article "HCU Terror Tactic" was not libellous. He said a reader of the newspaper could have inferred that something was wrong at HCU, and after the grant of the injunction, that article was capable of amounting to contempt of court.

Smith said after the order for the injunction was served on the Mirror, Chokolingo told his editors the effect of the decision. He said the Mirror representatives were in court before the publication of the second article.

Smith found that Persad did not breach the order. However, he found Chokolingo guilty of contempt. He said the order of Jamadar was not complied with. As a director of the newspaper, the judge found that Chokolingo was liable.

"He ran a loose ship. He turned a blind eye to what was done," Smith added. The judge found that Chokolingo had no control over what was published.

Smith said Chokolingo, under cross-examination, stated that he had informed the editors to obey the order of the court, but Smith found him liable and guilty of contempt of court. The judge ruled out prison as a form of punishment in this case.