Tweet
'Naked flights' letter malicious, Issa complained
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
On March 29, 2005, six years ago today, the Observer published a letter titled 'Naked flights to Jamaica' criticising the promotion by a travel website on behalf of Hedonism III, operated by SuperClubs. Its chairman, John Issa, sued the newspaper for defamation in the Supreme Court, in connection with which judgement in favour of the Observer was recently handed down. Following are excerpts from the transcript of the trial before Justice Kay Beckford:
Lord Gifford (Issa's lawyer): "...this in our submission is a straightforward case of a serious libel against the claimant. M'Lady, may I ask you to turn first to the bundle headed 'Bundle of Documents' filed on the 5th of March, which contains the pleadings. ...The 'Third Amended Particulars of Claim' recites in paragraph 4 at the bottom of page:
"That the defendants in an article letter published in the Daily Observer dated the 29th of March, 2005, under the caption 'Naked flights to Jamaica' falsely and maliciously published of and concerning the claimant ..."
Lord Gifford: "...On the first page of that bundle you will see the letter in the centre of the page under the heading 'Naked flights to Jamaica' and purporting to be signed by one Ian Hall of Queens, New York, USA."
Justice Beckford: "Yes."
Lord Gifford: "I don't think it's in dispute that the name "Issa" and "John Issa" refers to the claimant and SuperClubs, as is well known, is the name of the chain of hotels of which he is a prominent director. M'Lady, you may well think, and we submit, that this article was designed to hurt the claimant and did hurt him...
"It was a very personal attack. The name 'Issa' is mentioned five times. It was not only the policies of SuperClubs, but the character of the claimant that was subjected to attack. It was very insulting, in our submission.
"M'Lady, the defendant has pleaded the defence of fair comment, and in considering that defence it is important to identify what is fact or alleged fact and what is comment. The defence of fair comment, we will submit, requires that the facts, the alleged facts on which the comment is based are true, and the article makes, in our submission, three significant allegations of fact.
"First, that the claimant through his hotels continues to host nude weddings. The word 'continue' appears three times in the article, and the allegation that he was continuing to promote nude weddings was not true. What is true M'Lady, you will recognise it, of course, is that there had been three group weddings at Hedonism III, one of the claimant's hotels, at which the participants wore no clothes, were unclothed, but were bedecked with garlands of flowers. I think your Ladyship may remember them.
Justice Beckford: "No... Were bedecked with garlands of what?"
Lord Gifford: "Flowers... They occurred in February 2001, February 2002 and February 2003. There had been none since then. One was planned for June 2004 but it did not happen. Nothing was planned for 2005 and there were no group naked weddings in 2005, the year of the publication or any year since then. M'Lady, when the earlier group weddings happened there was a lively public debate. Some people approved, some people disapproved, and the claimant recognises the right of people and the media to fair comment on the activities of his hotels, but in our submission it is not fair comment or a matter of public interest."
Justice Beckford: "Did you say or?"
Lord Gifford: "Or a matter of public interest to rely on an event which happened, or events which happened between 2001 and 2003, and then to suggest that these events are still happening and to whip up hatred against the chairman of the company on the basis of something he is no longer promoting. That is what is true and what is untrue in relation to weddings.
"The second and perhaps more dominant allegation of fact, alleged fact, is that the claimant has promoted naked flights. That is not true, it's false. We suggest that what was being the meaning intended to be conveyed by the references to "naked flights" was that passengers travelling to Jamaica would strip naked in the aircraft.
Justice Beckford: "Sorry?"
Lord Gifford: "Would strip naked in the aircraft... and may indulge in sexual activity. The words 'naked flights' appear three times in the article and the fourth time in its heading associated with the words "nastiness, sodomy and sin". The truth is that there were no naked flights to our shores nor has the claimant promoted any naked flights..."
To be continued
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/-Nak...2#ixzz1I068XkRo