Judge refuses Vaz-Campbell defamation trial delay request

A defamation trial involving People’s National Party (PNP) General Secretary Dr Dayton Campbell, Energy Minister Daryl Vaz, and his co-claimants is set to begin in the Supreme Court today after a High Court judge yesterday refused an application to postpone the proceedings.
Justice Trecia Hutchinson Shelly ruled that the trial should proceed after rejecting an application made on behalf of attorney-at-law Alexander Williams, who is overseas and had sought an adjournment of this week’s hearing. Attorney Celine Dietrich, who appeared on Williams’ behalf, informed the court that he was unable to attend the trial and had communicated his request to the court.
Campbell’s attorney, Shena Stubbs-Gibson, had also asked the court to vacate the scheduled hearing dates and assign new dates. She told the court that she, too, also faced a challenge with next week’s sitting due to commitments in another jurisdiction. She argued that the matter should be rescheduled to ensure fairness to all parties and avoid placing the defence at a disadvantage.  
Williams represents the second and third claimants, St Thomas Western Member of Parliament James Robertson and former Member of Parliament Othneil Lawrence, both of whom are suing Campbell.
The first claimant, Portland Western MP and Cabinet minister Daryl Vaz, is represented by attorney Catherine Minto, and Campbell is represented by attorneys Stubbs-Gibson and Ruel Gibson.
COURTROOM APPEARANCES
During the proceedings, Campbell and Robertson were at times seen laughing and chatting quietly in the courtroom while Vaz remained seated, appearing serious and focused.
The matter had been scheduled to begin on Tuesday and has been allotted three days for hearing this week and a further three days next week.
In delivering her ruling, Hutchinson Shelly questioned why the court and opposing counsel were only informed by email on Monday that Williams would be unavailable despite the trial dates having been fixed since February last year.
“I must confess that I am still unable to determine why it is that the trial, having been set from the 20th of February last year, it is only yesterday that an email was sent to the court. Nothing was said to counsel prior to that advising that there was a challenge in having the matter proceed,” the judge said.
The judge added that she had considered concerns raised by Williams regarding document disclosure and inspection but found they did not justify vacating the trial dates.
While acknowledging the need to ensure fairness to all parties, Hutchinson Shelly noted that postponing the matter would significantly delay the proceedings as the court’s next available trial dates were not until June 2028.
“This is a matter from 2023. I think it goes without saying that that is a date that would push this matter even further into the future than I’m sure any of the parties would wish,” she said.
She, therefore, ordered that the trial begin today and directed all attorneys to be prepared to proceed without delay.
Dietrich, meanwhile, suggested that the court hear only Vaz’s claim this week, with the claims by Robertson and Lawrence to be heard next week. She also advised the court that Williams was willing to participate virtually if necessary.
However, Hutchinson Shelly declined to make that order, noting that the court had previously been advised that the matter could be completed within the allotted hearing period. Instead, she gave counsel until this morning to obtain further instructions and update the court.
The ruling followed submissions by attorneys over disclosure obligations, the exchange of documents, and the inspection of evidence. The court was advised that some of the skeletal arguments were not filed in keeping with an earlier order.
Minto, who said her client was ready to proceed, argued that there had been little communication from the defence in recent weeks regarding any outstanding issues. She submitted that concerns over the late service and inspection of outstanding documents, including newspaper articles and social media posts, were insufficient to derail the trial.
Hutchinson Shelly questioned why disputes over document inspection and disclosure had not been resolved well before the start of the trial.
Stubbs-Gibson maintained that the defence had repeatedly sought clarification regarding the claimants’ lists of documents but did not receive the requested material until Tuesday morning.
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
She told the court that three emails had been sent requesting the documents and argued that the delay had prejudiced the defence’s preparation and ability to properly present Campbell’s case.
Minto disputed that account, telling the court that only one email had been received on Monday and insisting that the relevant documents had been served months earlier in accordance with court orders.
She accused the defence of attempting to delay the proceedings, telling the court: “I can understand wanting to engineer an adjournment, but not this way.”
Hutchinson Shelly observed that the disagreements underscored the need for greater communication among counsel before trial and ruled that issues relating to document lists and inspection should not prevent the matter from proceeding.
The claims stem from statements allegedly made by Campbell during the PNP’s Clarendon North Western annual conference in July 2023.
Vaz, Robertson, and Lawrence allege that Campbell made defamatory remarks suggesting that they lacked integrity and decency. They contend that the statements were malicious and damaged their political, professional and personal reputations.
Campbell has denied the allegations, maintaining that the statements amounted to fair comment.
tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com