Magistrate appeals dismissal of $50M lawsuit against DPP

With the High Court dismissing his $50 million defamation lawsuit against Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, Senior Magistrate Alex Moore is now asking the Berbice Full Court to set aside the entire decision rendered by Justice Navindra Singh. In the proceedings filed on Wednesday by his lawyer, Arudranauth Gossai, Magistrate Moore is contending that Justice Singh made several errors in law when he struck out the lawsuit on December 2, 2020.
Against this backdrop, he is asking that the decision of the Judge be set aside and that the matter be reinstated in the High Court to take its normal course in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 2016. In July 2020, Magistrate Moore instituted a claim for the tort of defamation against Ali-Hack. Moore alleged that he was defamed in a letter authored by the DPP dated December 5, 2019.

The letter was 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”. Magistrate Moore claimed that the letter was falsely and maliciously written by the DPP and sent to acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and acting Chief Justice Roxane George.
He said that the letter suggested that he was not acting impartially in the matter, and, was, therefore unfit to sit as a Magistrate in the Preliminary Inquiry (PI) proceedings at the Whim Magistrate’s Court.
Magistrate Moore, in court documents, 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.
In August 2020, the DPP asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable reason for bringing the claim. Ali-Hack, through Senior Counsel Robin Stoby, Senior Counsel Jamela Ali and former Solicitor General Kim Kyte-Thomas, argued that the case was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the court process, and seeks to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

Ali-Hack submitted that Magistrate Moore could not sue her in her personal capacity since the letter refers to her acting in her professional capacity as Director of Public Prosecutions and did not constitute or display nor intend any malice against him.
Further, she argued that her office as 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, and the benefits of the operation of Section 3(4) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act.
Moreover, the DPP contended 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 concerning disciplinary considerations by members of the Judicial Service Commission of the actions of any member of the Magistracy, including him.
In his judgement, Justice Singh upheld the DPP’s argument that the claim brought by Magistrate Moore was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the court process, seeks to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings and disclosed no reasonable reason for bringing the claim. The Judge also upheld the argument that the office of the DPP is protected under the State Liability and Proceeding Act and the Justice Protection Act, concerning the execution of its functions.
Also, Justice Singh held that the lawsuit was in breach of Section 8 (1) of the Justice Protection Act as it was instituted more than seven months after Magistrate Moore became aware of the letter. The Judge also held that the claim was also in breach of Section 8 (2) of the Justice Protection Act since Magistrate Moore failed to give the DPP notice in writing of his intention to institute the claim.
Among other things, Magistrate Moore in his grounds of appeal to the Full Court submitted that Justice Singh erred or misdirected himself on the law when he found that the DPP was protected by the Justice Protection Act when this was a question of fact to be determined at a trial and is not an issue which could be resolved on a strikeout application.
“The learned Trial Judge erred in law and/or misguided himself on the law when he found at page 2 of his judgement that the Appellant [Magistrate Moore] clearly accepted that the Respondent [DPP] was acting in her capacity as DPP when this was a question of fact which could not be resolved without a trial and the taking of evidence,” Magistrate Moore argued.
The Senior Magistrate further contended that Justice Singh also erred in law and misdirected himself on the law when he awarded $200,000 in court costs against him when the maximum costs on a strikeout application is $30,000 in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 2016. A date for hearing in this matter is likely to be fixed in the new year.