The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Chief Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

MINISTER of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Fred Mitchell has made a counterclaim in the libel civil suit filed against him by attorney Fred Smith, in turn accusing the outspoken QC of slander.

In the defence and counterclaim filed on Tuesday, Mr Smith is accused of making defamatory comments against Mr Mitchell as a guest on the Love 97.5 radio show “Issues of the Day” in March, stating that Mr Mitchell was a liar and had lied in the House of Assembly about an immigration matter.

Mr Mitchell is seeking an injunction against Mr Smith to prevent him from making the same or similar defamatory remarks, and is asking for $4.5m in damages for slander, along with aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages.

The charge is nearly identical to the initial claim brought by Mr Smith, who is seeking $3m in aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages incurred due to Mr Mitchell’s statement on a pending judicial review that implied that the high-profile lawyer was dishonest and a liar.

The comments attributed to Mr Smith as a guest on the radio talk show are: “Fred Mitchell goes to the House of Assembly lying about Cubans. Fred Mitchell is a liar.”

Mr Mitchell’s counterclaim noted: “In their natural and ordinary meaning the said words meant and were understood to mean that: Fred Mitchell is dishonest about the matters involving Cuban nationals when speaking to the House of Assembly. Fred Mitchell is a liar.”

It continued: “The mentioned radio programme is broadcast nationwide and has an estimated listenership of, or around, 60,000 people.”

The claim furthered that Mr Mitchell had incurred damage to his character, and his personal and professional reputation. In support of the request for damages, the claim referenced the “specificity of the remark and the obvious lack of consideration of an adjective other than liar”.

It also highlighted “the seriousness of the allegations in light of the defendant’s position in public office and the residual damage to his personal reputation and professional career as a public servant.”

It continued: “Given the plaintiff (Fred Smith) is a senior attorney he was or ought to have been aware of the foreseeable risk of re-publication and the likelihood that these remarks would be duly carried by word of mouth in a nation with a small population, as well as the reasonable foreseeability of sound bites being reproduced and circulated via social media.”

Mr Mitchell’s claim emphasised that unless restrained by the court, Mr Smith would continue to make defamatory remarks against him.

The legal battle stems from another court case involving Coral Beach Homeowners Association President Bruno Rufa and the Immigration Department that was under judicial review. Mr Rufa was represented by Mr Smith in that matter.

In the initial claim, Mr Mitchell is accused of libel by tarnishing the reputation of Mr Smith as a result of a statement given by the Cabinet minister, published in The Tribune on February 15.

Mr Mitchell at the time had dismissed Mr Smith’s fears that the Immigration Department’s actions would spark a second homeowners’ “exodus” from Freeport when he described the Callenders & Co QC as “a stranger to the truth” during his backing of the department’s handling of Mr Rufa’s case.

Mr Mitchell, in an e-mailed response to Tribune Business on Mr Smith’s comments in February, said: “Mr Smith is well known for hyperbole and gross defamatory statements. I’m not sure if he knows the truth if it stares him in the face.”

Mr Mitchell’s defence noted that his published comments were stated without malice, and denied that they were meant or understood to mean that Mr Smith was a liar or dishonest. The defence called on Mr Smith to provide strict proof for his allegations, underscoring that the QC was well known in the public domain for his “flagrant and dramatic theatrics and statements to the media”.

Mr Mitchell’s defence continued: “The plaintiff has an established reputation as a dramatic, outspoken and theatrical alarmist. Notably he has appeared both on television and in the print media making statements soiled with hyperbole and conjecture.

“The plaintiff has also gone to the extent of going down on his knees during a publicly broadcasted television interview and pleading the defendant is not re-elected.”

Mr Mitchell’s defence pointed to published comments made by Mr Smith in the Rufa matter, in which the QC called on the government to “stop terrorising this important economic engine of Freeport” - referring to the Immigration Department’s handling of second homeowners.

“In the premises the words complained of were fair comment in expressing the opinion that the plaintiff has no familiarity with the conduct, or decision making process of the Department of Immigration to make such allegations, and in expressing the opinion that he is dramatic, if not at times reckless in his statements, some of which may amount to defamatory remarks,” Mr Mitchell’s defence noted.