- NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 27/Jun 20:16

Cro Cro gets stay on $250,000 ruling to Inshan Ishmael

THE Court of Appeal has granted a stay of execution on a $250,000 defamation judgment awarded to activist Inshan Ishmael against four-time Calypso Monarch Weston “Cro Crow” Rawlins, pending the outcome of the calypsonian’s appeal. The stay was granted by Justice of Appeal Geoffrey Henderson, who found that the case raised issues of public importance and warranted appellate review, particularly concerning the boundaries between freedom of artistic expression and defamation law. In January 2024, High Court judge Frank Seepersad ruled in Ishmael’s favour, finding that lyrics from a calypso performed by Rawlins at a national calypso competition and remarks made during a radio interview were defamatory. The court awarded $250,000 in general damages and $35,000 in exemplary damages to Ishmael. Rawlins appealed the ruling and later applied for a stay of the judgment. However, Ishmael is prepared to take his fight to the Privy Council. His attorney, Richard Jaggasar, said on June 27, “We are prepared to take this matter to the Privy Council and hear what the law lords have to say on the genesis and relevance of calypso and its impact in today’s society. “Especially in the circumstances of this case, where the words spoken were direct, and references to specific races were plain and obvious.” In his application, his attorneys argued that the appeal had a good chance of success, that there would be greater injustice to him if a stay was denied, and that the case involved special circumstances. Ishmael’s legal team opposed the stay, maintaining that the trial judge’s findings on the defamatory nature of the lyrics were well grounded in fact and law. They also argued that there was no clear reason to delay the enforcement of the judgment. The appeal centres on whether the defence of qualified privilege should extend to calypso performances, whether the performance constituted libel or slander, and whether the trial judge erred in awarding damages. Rawlins also contended that calypso, as a satirical art form, should not be judged by journalistic standards and that no official recording of the performance was authorised. Henderson acknowledged the cultural context of calypso in Trinidad and Tobago, noting its historic use of satire and commentary. “The issue may require more nuanced analysis in the context of considering calypso as an indigenous musical art form and its historical and cultural role in our society. “History is replete with examples of picong, satire and uncharitable statements made against notable public figures and government officials.” He said that “the appeal raises issues that would benefit from appellate review, particularly given the far-reaching cultural implications for any potential fettering of the latitude now enjoyed by calypsonians.” While he made no final determination on the merits of the appeal, Henderson concluded that there was a sufficiently arguable case and that neither side had demonstrated a greater risk of injustice if the stay was granted or denied. The judge noted that Rawlins had expressed financial difficulty in paying the judgment and that there was no conclusive evidence that Ishmael would be unable to recover the award if the appeal ultimately failed. He also found the matter of sufficient public interest to be considered a special circumstance warranting a stay. He ordered that the enforcement of Seepersad’s judgment be paused until the Court of Appeal hears and rules on the substantive appeal, which is set for March 13, 2026.. In December 2024, Justice of Appeal James Aboud approved Rawlins’s application for an extension of time to file the record of appeal, despite opposition from Ishmael’s lawyers, who had argued that the appeal was filed too late. In ruling, Aboud weighed procedural delays against the broader implications of the case for TT's cultural traditions. He noted that the appeal raised important questions about the distinction between libel and slander, and whether live calypso performances — captured and shared by third parties — should fall under stricter defamation standards. He expressed doubts about whether slander could properly be elevated to libel based solely on the audience’s unauthorised recordings. “If this elevation of a slander to a libel remained in our lawbooks, then our calypsonians would be restricted by this judgment in any live performance, whether at a private party among friends or at a public performance. Any poet or minstrel would likewise be constrained during the expression of his or her art if someone unexpectedly pulled out a camera phone.” He further noted that while he had doubts that a “tortious slander can be elevated to a libel by the publication of a slander by a third party on his mobile phone to persons unknown,” calypsonians were "not to be equated with journalists reporting news but entertainers using wit and, sometimes, pointed innuendo. Lines need to be drawn.” Seepersad had ruled Rawlins abused his creative licence in his 2023 calypso, Another Sat is Outside Again, in response to Ishmael’s statements about people in Laventille and Beetham. Gilbert Peterson, SC, and Kareem Marcelle represent Rawlins while Richard Jaggasar and Lynda Gopeesingh represent Ishmael. [caption id="attachment_1163261" align="alignnone" width="1024"] Calypsonian Cro Cro - File photo[/caption] The post Cro Cro gets stay on $250,000 ruling to Inshan Ishmael appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.