ST. VINCENT-COURT-Facebook publication leads to a defamation case.

KINGSTOWN, St. Vincent, A magistrate court has ordered a woman to pay EC$6,062 (One EC dollar=US$0.37 cents) to a woman for defamation following a row that erupted on Facebook over a video in which she was filmed lifting up her dress, revealing her tights.

Senior Magistrate Rickie Burnett ordered that the woman, Wena Roberts, pay the money to Veronica Solomon, who brought two defamation suits against Roberts.

But the magistrate court only awarded damages in one of the matters, ruling that one action could have been brought.

In explaining his decision, the magistrate referred to the case of Jennelle Burke in Trinidad, where the court there held that in light of the advances of technology, libel and slander could no longer be viewed as strictly the spoken word versus the written word.

“The format into which statements can be reduced so as to be considered to be in a permanent form has evolved and extended way beyond the sphere of written or typed text,” the court ruled, noting that audiovisual and electronic forms are capable of having a degree of permanency and transcend geographical borders.

“In this context, the law in relation to libel and slander can no longer be viewed through the myopic lens of written words versus spoken words as technological advances have created circumstances by virtue of which the spoken word can be easily encrypted into a permanent, irreversible format, which can be accessed from the global platform,” Burnett said, quoting the Trinidad decision.

The magistrate said that in a defamation case, the plaintiff is required to prove three things to obtain judgment and an award of damages, namely that the words complained of were defamatory in that they lowered the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; that the words, in fact, referred to the plaintiff; and that the words were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.

He said that from the evidence, the court concluded that the words were defamatory to the plaintiff.

“The defendant did not provide evidence to the court to satisfy the court that the allegations were true,” he ruled, adding that even if Roberts had an issue with someone defaming her, defaming his mother was not the way to solve the issue.

“The court is of the view that having eight children for six men does not make you ****,” Burnett said, quoting one of the words that Solomon complained of.

“The plaintiff said she ended the relationship and started another. Having eight children for six men in itself does not make the plaintiff a loose and immoral woman. It could also be that she was unlucky and kept searching. One relationship after another does not make one a ****. Against that background, the defense of truth fails in both claims.”

He said the aim of an award of damages is to compensate the plaintiff for injury to her reputation.

Burnett said that in cases of libel and those of slander, which are actionable, the law is that the plaintiff’s reputation would have suffered some damage, and so for that, damages would be awarded.

The magistrate said that in the current case, he took into account the nature of the defamation, the circumstances, and the extent of the publication — that is, on social media, the extent of the publication, including the extent of the circulation on social media by the platform Facebook.

He said he also took into account the persistence of the defendant on her plea of justification, which eventually failed.

“Although two claims were filed, it is clear to the court that one claim could have been brought as the defamation occurred in the same publication.”

He said the Small Debts Act prohibits the splitting of the cause of action. Hence, the court would only be making one award by entering judgment in the sum of EC$5,062

Roberts was not in court when the judgment was handed down, as one of her relatives had died.

In the first claim, Solomon alleged that Roberts, in her Facebook post, defamed her by accusing her of having committed a criminal act. In relation to the second claim, Solomon alleged that Roberts’ words had caused her to lose her reputation and subjected her to ridicule.

Solomon said she saw the video on Facebook and understood the words spoken by Roberts to be associating her with a criminal offense. She said she felt bad, and friends told her about it in the market.

When Solomon testified in the matter, the video was still on Facebook and had been viewed 9,000 times.

Regarding the second claim, Solomon said that Roberts used certain words that made certain suggestions about her morality. She testified that she has eight children fathered by six men and denied the allegation Roberts made about her.

“When a relationship finished, I started another one,” Solomon told the court.