DPP asks court to dismiss $50M lawsuit against her

…as Magistrate accuses her of injuring his credibility, reputation

Lawyers for Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Senior Counsel Shalimar Ali-Hack have asked the High Court to dismiss a $50 million defamation lawsuit filed against her by Senior Magistrate Alex Moore.

Her lawyers, Senior Counsel Robin Stoby, former Solicitor-General Kim Kyte-Thomas and Jamela Ali are contending that the lawsuit was not only an abuse of the court process, but also vexatious as it disclosed no reasonable ground for bringing the claim for millions in damages.
Magistrate Moore, a practising Attorney-at-Law for 14 years, alleges that he was defamed in a letter dated December 5, 2019 titled “Re: Conduct of Magistrate Alex Moore in the charge of the Police vs Marcus Bisram for the offence of murder, Contrary to Common Law”. The letter, Magistrate Moore, said was falsely and maliciously written by the DPP and sent to acting Chancellor of the Judiciary and the acting Chief Justice.
In a Statement of Claim, the 42-year-old Magistrate said that the letter sent to the acting Chancellor and acting Chief Justice suggested that he was not acting impartially in the matter, and, was, therefore unfit to sit as a Magistrate in a murder trial against Marcus Bisram by the State, for which Preliminary Inquiry (PI) proceedings were being held at the Whim Magistrate’s Court.

The letter was penned after the court’s substantive Magistrate Renita Singh went on leave, resulting in Magistrate Moore sitting at that court. Magistrate Moore, in court documents, through his lawyer, Arudranauth Gossai noted that the contents of the letter have greatly injured his character, credibility, and reputation. He further noted that it has subjected him to public ridicule, causing him to suffer mental anguish, distress, and depression.

Dismiss
In response, the DPP has asked the court to dismiss the case on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable reason for bringing the claim. Ali-Hack argues that the case is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the court process, and seeks to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. Having regard to the foregoing, her lawyers are asking that the case be thrown out with fixed costs awarded and such further or other reliefs the court deems just.
According to Ali-Hack, the letter at hand refers to her acting in her professional capacity as Director of Public Prosecutions, and not in her personal capacity. She contends that the title of the action against her in her personal capacity “is. Therefore. a colourable device, to seek to escape the effects substantially and procedurally suing [her personally] instead of in her office as Director of Public Prosecutions”.
Her lawyers submit, “The said office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent constitutional office of the State as recognised under Articles 116 and 187 of the Constitution for which [she] would be patently entitled to the protection of Sections 8 and 4 of the Justice Protection Act Cap 5:07, and the benefits of the operation of Section 3(4) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act Cap 6:05.”
The DPP’s lawyers said their client’s letter was addressed to the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary in her official capacity as pursuant to Section 12 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Magistrate) Act Cap 3:05. The lawyers outlined that the letter requested the removal of Magistrate Moore as the Magistrate conducting the PI into the capital charge of murder against Marcus Bisram at the Whim Magistrate’s Court following a report by State Prosecutor Stacy Gooding.
The lawyers further submitted that the Chancellor was entitled to carry out, in accordance with the aforementioned Section, for reason of “the Magistrate’s personal interest in that cause or matter or for any other sufficient reason”. It is against this backdrop, the DPP’s legal representatives argue, the letter did not constitute or display nor intend any malice against Magistrate Moore.
According to the lawyers, the acting Chancellor was also the Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission under Article 198 (a)(1) of the Constitution, and the said Commission is the supervisory authority for the Magistracy of Guyana including [Magistrate Moore] against whom by virtue of Article 199 of the Constitution the Commission is entitled to exercise discipline or remove.
The DPP said that her report to the acting Chancellor contained allegations of misconduct against Magistrate Moore in his professional responsibility and not in his private capacity, and were capable of being investigated by the Chancellor for the purposes of invoking the disciplinary procedures set out in the Judicial Service Commission rules.
Moreover, the DPP contends that Magistrate Moore’s case is contrary to public policy by seeking through defamatory claims to intimidate or prevent the process of complaints against the conduct of Magistrates, and particularly in relation to disciplinary considerations by members of the Judicial Service Commission of the actions of any member of the Magistracy, including him.
Moore has been a sitting Magistrate for nine years assigned to Georgetown, East Demerara, Berbice and Corentyne Magisterial districts. He was admitted to practise law in the courts of Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Barbados, Grenada and the British Virgin Islands where he practised before being elevated to a magistrate.