博客

After years of navigating legal proceedings, former Castries Mayor Peterson Francis has stated he feels fully vindicated, following a recent ruling from the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal that reaffirms a lower court judgment in his favor in a long-running defamation dispute. In an exclusive interview with local outlet St Lucia Times, Francis shared that the outcome has restored his faith in the fairness of the regional legal system. “This gives me confidence that the law works,” he remarked. “You cannot just spread unsubstantiated claims about someone, inflict lasting harm on their personal and professional reputation, and expect to face no consequences for those actions.”
The appellate court formally rejected an appeal filed by Christopher Hunt last week, upholding every clause of the original High Court ruling that sided with Francis. The roots of the case stretch back to February 2, 2018, when a pre-recorded episode of Choice TV’s popular talk show *Politically Incorrect* was broadcast. At the time of the airing, Francis was still serving as Mayor of Castries, and had publicly announced his intention to run in the upcoming St Lucia general election. During that broadcast, the show’s host and an anonymous on-air caller made a series of explosive, unproven claims targeting Francis’s conduct in public office.
On February 11, 2025, Francis filed an official defamation claim against Hunt, arguing that the language used during the broadcast carried the clear implication that he was a thief, had a long track record of corrupt behavior tied to his public office, and had run his entire tenure as mayor through corrupt practices. Hunt, the defendant in the original case, denied the defamation allegations entirely, but failed to submit a complete, itemized list of the exact statements he claimed had been made during the show as part of his formal defense. Francis countered by submitting a full, unedited recording of the broadcast as evidence, which the lower court ruled was fully authentic and admissible.
In its original judgment, the High Court emphasized that the allegations aired on the program were far from trivial personal jabs, describing them as exceptionally grave. The court further noted that if members of the public had accepted those claims as true, they would have completely eroded any public trust that Francis was fit to hold any elected public position. The presiding judge ultimately ruled that the statements in question qualified as defamatory, and ordered Hunt to pay Francis $35,000 in general damages, plus pre-judgment interest calculated at 3% per annum starting from the date Francis filed his claim, and post-judgment interest at a 6% annual rate until the full judgment sum was paid off. Hunt was also ordered to cover all of Francis’s legal fees in line with the court’s official prescribed cost scale.
Unwilling to accept the outcome, Hunt filed an appeal against the ruling, and later submitted an amended notice of appeal on November 7, 2025, that laid out eight separate legal grounds to challenge the original judgment. When reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal focused its deliberations on two core legal questions: first, whether the original judge had correctly determined that Francis had met all the statutory requirements laid out in Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, and second, whether the lower court judge had improperly ignored a formal apology that Hunt had published when evaluating whether the statements had caused serious reputational harm, and when calculating the final damages award.
After a full review of the case materials, the appellate panel dismissed Hunt’s appeal in its entirety. It formally upheld the $35,000 general damages award, all mandated interest payments, and the original order for Hunt to cover Francis’s initial legal costs. The panel additionally ruled that Hunt must pay all of Francis’s legal costs tied to the appeal process, with the exact sum to be assessed by a High Court judge or master if the two parties fail to reach a mutual agreement on the total amount within 30 days of the appeal ruling being issued.
Speaking to St Lucia Times after the appeal decision was released, Francis noted that unsubstantiated corruption allegations are far too frequently lobbed at public figures both in public forums and on local talk shows across the region. “Too often people’s names are thrown into all sorts of allegations of corruption, whether publicly or on talk shows,” he pointed out. “But how many people are confident that they can stand on the law of defamation and proceed with a case?” He added that he had invested significant time and effort to pursue the case through every stage of the legal process, and that he had always acted in the best interests of St Lucia rather than for personal financial gain throughout his time as mayor. “So no matter how they tried to pin allegations of corruption on me, I stood on the side of what was right. I hope that this may give other people who find themselves in my position the courage to do what they too believe is right,” he concluded.