The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal hasdismissed Christopher Hunte’s appeal and upheld an EC$35,000 defamation award to former Castries Mayor Peterson Francis. The judges found that Hunte’s on-air questions reinforced a caller’s allegations and that the seriousness of the claims, the circumstances of the broadcast and Francis’s public standing supported an inference of serious reputational harm.
The court delivered its judgment on November 5, 2026, following proceedings on October 20 and November 5. The case arose from the February 2, 2018 edition of Hunte’s Politically Incorrect, broadcast on Choice News Now, Channel 39.
During the programme, Hunte aired a recording in which a caller accused Francis of dishonesty, corruption and misuse of public funds, including allegations that he had used public office for personal gain. Francis was then serving as Mayor of Castries. He was also a businessman and had previously been endorsed as the United Workers Party’s candidate for Castries Central before stepping aside ahead of the 2016 general election.
The High Court judge described the allegations as grave. The appeal judges agreed that, if believed, the claims would undermine public confidence in Francis’s fitness to hold office.
A central question on appeal was whether the broadcast had caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to Francis’s reputation. That is the test under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, which applies in Saint Lucia through Article 917A of the Civil Code.
Hunte argued that evidence of the programme’s transmission on Channel 39 did little to establish how many people had seen or heard it. The Court of Appeal rejected that submission as “patently unsound”.
The judges explained that a court can infer serious harm from the gravity of the allegations, the circumstances in which they were broadcast and the claimant’s public standing. In this case, those factors supported the finding without direct testimony from viewers. The judges added that even a statement communicated to one person can seriously damage someone’s reputation, depending on the circumstances.
The Court of Appeal also upheld the finding that Hunte adopted and reinforced the caller’s allegations when he followed the recording with his own questions. The High Court judge found that Hunte “did not act as a responsible journalist” and that his questioning lent the accusations further credibility.
Hunte also argued that the High Court had overlooked an apology he said he aired on the programme. The appeal judges found that the apology had never been formally introduced into evidence, so the High Court was under no obligation to consider it.
The court upheld the EC$35,000 award in general damages, EC$6,760.27 in pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest at six per cent per year and the legal costs awarded by the High Court.
Francis was also awarded his costs of the appeal. A High Court judge or master will assess those costs if the parties cannot agree on the amount within 30 days.
