Law Lords reserve judgment

The one-day appeal was heard in London yesterday following which the Law Lords reserved judgment to a day sometime in July.

The appeal was heard before Lords Nicholls, Hoffman, Rodger, Walker, and Baroness Hale.

Gordon, who was present in the London court, was represented by Douglas Mendes SC, Vanessa Gopaul, and Dennis Gurley. English Queen’s Counsel Michael Beloff appeared for Panday along with Dr Fenton Ramsahoye SC, Anand Ramlogan, and Reshard Khan.

Beloff, a name familiar with the Trinidad High Court, took up most of the day making his submissions to the court.

Mendes replied, taking just 45 minutes to respond. At the end of the submissions, Lord Nicholls said the written decision would be given shortly.

The main contention of Panday’s case was whether the term pseudo-racist was libellous and slanderous.

According to reports, the body language of the Lords yesterday indicated that they believed that the term was libellous.

Attending yesterday’s hearing were retired Court of Appeal Judge Ulric Cross and Desmond Allum SC.

Gordon filed a writ following a speech given by Panday in his capacity as prime minister at an Indian Arrival Day celebration at Chandernagore on May 30, 1997. On that occasion, Panday spoke passionately of the need for national unity in Trinidad and Tobago that was a highly divided society.

He pinpointed several ‘‘dividers’’ of the society, one class of dividers whom he called ‘psuedo-racists.

He also spoke of Ken Gordon in the following manner, "The Ken Gordons who want to maintain his monopolistic advantage over his competitors in the media."

On October 11, 2000, while Panday was still prime minister, Justice Peter Jamadar found that Panday had wilfully and maliciously defamed Gordon in the worst possible way. Panday was held liable for libel and slander and ordered to pay $600,000 in damages along with costs. Panday later appealed.

But the Court of Appeal was divided when it delivered its judgment on October 31, 2003.

Justices Roger Hamel-Smith and Margot Warner reduced the $600,000 award to $300,000, while Chief Justice Sat Sharma, who dissented, awarded Gordon just $100.

The Chief Justice said he was convinced that the award of $600,000 in damages was excessive in all the circumstances of the case.

He disagreed with Jamadar’s award of aggravated damages. He felt that an award of nominal damages was more suitable and therefore awarded Gordon $100.

Hamel-Smith, in his judgment, said while the allegation made against Gordon was considered to be serious, the loss of reputation could not be considered as severe and irreparable.

He considered an award of $300,000 to be more appropriate and fair to compensate Gordon and re-establish his reputation.

Warner also agreed on $300,000 saying the ordinary listener or reader would have concluded that Panday used race to his personal and commercial advantage.