L-R: Assistant Commissioner of Police Calvin Brutus and former Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Paul Slowe
The $70 million libel suit filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Calvin Brutus against former Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Paul Slowe was dismissed on Friday by High Court Judge Simone Morris-Ramlall.
Back in April 2022, Brutus filed a 60 million lawsuit against Slowe and another 10 million for defamatory statements which were uttered between November 22, 2021, and January 12, 2022.
At the High Court on Friday, Justice Morris-Ramlall dismissed the case over a breach of the Court’s orders issued during a Case Management Conference (CMC). It was reported that the claimant failed to submit witness statements.
The Judge also found the move to be a breach of the procedures of the court, since the statements were never filed.
It was reported that Brutus was seeking damages in excess of $70 million for libel committed against him by Slowe late last year and in this year.
Brutus had deposed that, shortly after Slowe was charged with three counts of sexual assault committed against a senior Policewoman, and with fraud, he created Facebook and YouTube pages for the “sole purpose” of attacking the character of officers investigating him for these offences, in an effort to prejudice the investigations.
Since the Facebook and YouTube pages have been created, Brutus said, Slowe regularly publishes and causes to be published, defamatory materials about and concerning him. According to Brutus, on or about November 2, 2021, Slowe caused certain defamatory words to be published about him via this Facebook page.
The publication was shared 12 times, and attracted over 100 interactions in the form of reactions and comments. It continues to be viewable, complained Brutus, who has over two decades of service in the Guyana Police Force (GPF).
Brutus had said that, on or about November 22, 2021, Slowe participated in a live video broadcast hosted on Facebook by US-based political commentator and ally of the APNU/AFC Opposition, Rickford Burke. During the broadcast, Brutus said, Slowe published and caused to be published defamatory words of and concerning Brutus, about 49:00 minutes into the said broadcast.
Brutus added that similar publications about him were made on December 22 and 29, 2021. He disclosed that another publication about him was made on or about January 5, via a live broadcast on Slowe’s Facebook page. It was titled: “Speaking Exposing Corruption and Incompetence”.
Another such broadcast about him was made on January 12.
Brutus contended that, on each and every occasion, the statements by Slowe were “deliberate and actuated by malice”, and were published in “retaliation against the criminal charges instituted against him”. He also contended that the statements, in their natural and ordinary meaning, and by way of innuendo, mean that he is unqualified to hold the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police; unfit to be a member of the Police Force; unfit to serve in the rank; and is incompetent.
Brutus argued that the statements inferred that he was undermining the proper functioning of the Police Force; committed criminal offences punishable by imprisonment; abuses his power and office; is unfit to serve his country as a Police officer; is corrupt, unprofessional, dishonourable; and is a dishonest person and lacking in integrity.
By reason of the publication of the words complained of, Brutus submitted, his reputation has been, and continues to be, seriously injured. As a result, he deposed, he has suffered considerable hurt, distress, and embarrassment; is exposed to reputational injury and hurt; has been, and continues to be, demeaned in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public; and has been, and continues to be, demeaned in the eyes of his peers and subordinate ranks of the Police Force.
According to Brutus, the statements were calculated and did in fact, cause his authority to be questioned. He said Slowe uttered those words knowing they were false, and he added that the utterances were “calculated” to disparage him, and were intentionally done to, and did, embarrass, humiliate, and injure his reputation and standing in his profession and office.
As a consequence of the said publication, Brutus complained, his reputation has been seriously harmed, and he has suffered considerable hurt, embarrassment, distress, and anxiety.
He said that, in support of his claim for damages, including aggravating damages, he would rely on the fact that the publications remain accessible on the World Wide Web; and he was never offered an apology by Slowe, who has challenged him to take him to court.
Unless restrained by the court, Brutus submitted, Slowe would further publish the same or similar defamatory statements. As such, he was asking the court for an injunction restraining Slowe, whether by himself, his servants, his agents or employees, or otherwise howsoever, from further speaking or publishing the same or any similar defamatory matters about him.
Brutus had also sought an order compelling Slowe to remove the defamatory publications from the internet.
