Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
OPPOSITION LEADER Edward Seaga has been ordered by the Supreme Court to pay $3.5 million in damages for libel to retired Deputy Commissioner of Police Leslie Harper.
Justice Patrick Brooks ruled yesterday that Mr. Seaga de-famed Mr. Harper's character at a meeting in Kingston on March 6, 1996. The award is for injury to Mr. Harper's reputation and aggravated damages.
Attorney-at-law Christopher Bovell, of the law firm DunnCox, told The Gleaner yesterday that Mr. Seaga was appealing the decision. He said the Leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) had also instructed them to apply for a stay of execution of the judgement.
WORDS
Mr. Seaga had admitted using the words which Mr. Harper complained about, but had claimed qualified privilege. He said he was duty-bound to make the comments based on his position and the nature of the information and its importance to the Jamaican public.
The comments at the meeting stemmed from reports that the contract of the then Commissioner of Police, Colonel Trevor MacMillan, was to have expired within three months and Mr. Harper was one of the persons considered as eligible to succeed him.
Under cross examination in October this year, Mr. Harper, who is now practising as an attorney-at-law, denied discussing politics with anyone during his 36 years in the Police Force. He said he was never stripped of his position because of political bias and had never been a political activist.
"I find that Mr. Harper is entitled to aggravated damages based on the extent of the publicity given to the speech, the effect it would have had then on the members of the public and Mr. Harper's colleagues in the Police Force and also based on the conduct of the defence in the case," the judge said.
JUDGE'S FINDING
It was also the judge's finding that Mr. Seaga did not succeed in showing that the occasion was one that entitled him to disparage Mr. Harper's character as a Deputy Commissioner of Police. The judge found that as a result of what Mr. Seaga said, Mr. Harper would have been reduced in the eyes of right-thinking people, particularly persons in the Police Force.
"There is no evidence that Mr. Seaga could not have aired his concern in Parliament where such a pronouncement would have had the benefit of being officially noted, had an equal chance of national exposure and, of course, the absolute privilege afforded statements made in that honourable House," the judge added.
The judge ruled that Mr. Harper should be compensated for the injury to his reputation although Mr. Harper produced very little by way of proof to such loss.
