Keith Claudius Mitchell (Appellant) v Patrick Simmons (Respondent) (Grenada)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0062

Jurisdiction

Grenada

Parties

Appellant(s)

Keith Claudius Mitchell

Respondent(s)

Patrick Simmons

Issue

This appeal concerns a claim in defamation. Was the judge entitled to find malice, and to reject the defence of fair comment?

Facts

The appellant, Keith Claudius Mitchell, was at the material time the Prime Minister of Grenada (elected following general elections in 2013) and leader of the New National Party (NNP). The respondent, Patrick Simmons, served as Minister of Youth Empowerment and Sports from 2008 to 2013 under the National Democratic Congress (NDC) government. On or about 1st June 2013, the appellant attended a town hall meeting in Brooklyn, New York in his capacity as Prime Minister. This was arranged for the benefit of Grenadian citizens residing in New York and involved taking questions from the audience. One question posed concerned allegations the appellant had made regarding members of the previous NDC government were shareholders of land which was sold to the Government. The appellant answered that “it is a fact” that land was bought by a company in which ministers of government were shareholders and then sold to the government. He stated “I’m talking from Cabinet papers” and that “these are facts, ask Simmons if he wasn’t a member of that Company as an example, just ask him.” The respondent brought a claim against the appellant in defamation. He sought general, aggravated and exemplary damages. He argued that in their natural and ordinary meaning, or by innuendo, the appellant’s words meant and were intended to mean that members of the NDC government were involved in a scheme of buying land to sell to the government for profit; that the respondent, as a Government minister, used his position to profit at the expense of the people of Grenada, and had engaged in corrupt practices. In his defence, the appellant pleaded qualified privilege, in that he was the Prime Minister of Grenada at the material time, speaking on matters of the state and public interest on a matter of public concern. In the alternative, he pleaded the defence of fair comment, that the words were on matters of public interest as to the conduct of the government in office at the time. The judge found that the words were defamatory of the respondent, as they were capable of lowering the respondent’s reputation and exposing him to public contempt. The judge found that both defences appellant’s defences of qualified privilege and fair comment both failed. In addition, the judge found malice in that the appellant acted recklessly in not verifying facts before making the comments; and his refusal to retract or apologise aggravated harm. The judge ordered the appellant to pay the respondent general damages of $100,000 and aggravated damages of $30,000. The judge denied the claim for exemplary damages as he found the claimant’s conduct was not oppressive or profit-driven, and declined to grant an injunction. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals to His Majesty in Council.

Date of issue

13 July 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top