Attorneys representing Dr Sahle Griffith have indicated that they will “immediately” appeal a ruling which could open the door for the surgeon to face criminal charges regarding the death of Warren Mottley.
On Monday, High Court judge Justice Patrick Wells dismissed the claim for judicial review brought by Dr Griffith following a 2022 ruling by Coroner Graveney Bannister that he and another doctor were negligent in Mottley’s death. Warren Mottley, the brother of Prime Minister Mia Mottley, died at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital on June 29, 2021, a week after a routine colonoscopy at Surgical Solutions Inc., where Dr Griffith is the principal.
In his decision, Bannister said the conduct of both doctors was “so bad in all the circumstances” that it would amount to a criminal act and that they were “negligent and concerned in the cause of his death”.
Making his ruling in the No. 10 Supreme Court on Monday, Justice Wells stated that based on the discussions conducted and the conclusions drawn, “the court refuses to interfere in the inquest conducted and the verdict rendered by the learned Coroner.”
“When litigants establish claims of merit on the facts and/or law, they must be copiously given every sinew of remedies to which they are rightfully entitled. Equally, when such claimants fail to do so, the court must be careful, diligent and astute not to abuse its authority and its discretion in making orders to which a litigant is not justly entitled,” Justice Wells stated.
The judge then made several orders, including dismissing the judicial review claim brought by Dr Griffith in its entirety and refusing all orders sought; that all proceedings in the inquest into the death of Mottley conducted by Magistrate Bannister stand; that the magistrate’s verdict in the inquest stand undisturbed; that any injunction granted by the High Court about the matter be fully discharged with immediate effect; and that cost is awarded to the respondent.
In his application for judicial review, Dr Griffith claimed that the coroner, among other things, exceeded his jurisdiction, arrived at an unfair/improper verdict, breached the principles of natural justice, and violated the applicant’s/claimant’s constitutional rights to a fair trial and the protection of the law.
However, Justice Wells ruled that there was no evidence the coroner had acted with bias, that Dr Griffith was deprived of any rights entitled to him under the principles of natural justice or under the Constitution, or that there was any illegality committed by the coroner.
Solicitor General Anika Jackson, along with Roger Forde KC, and Senior State Counsel Nicole Boyce appeared for Magistrate Bannister, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Commissioner of Police.
“The only thing I can say about the decision is that it was expected. The injunction should never have been granted. Unless you can find that there was malfeasance, a DPP who has a constitutional role should not be enjoined from performing their duties,” Forde told Barbados TODAY.
“The only person who can charge is the DPP. Once the DPP is satisfied that there is no injunction, nothing prevents the DPP. The injunctions have been removed,” the senior attorney added when questioned about possible charges against the surgeon.
In March 2023, the High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Dr Griffith which prevented the authorities from charging him criminally in the death of Mottley.
King’s Counsel Ralph Thorne, who is representing Dr Griffith in association with Hal Gollop, KC, and Emerald Griffith, told Barbados TODAY that they would be appealing the judge’s ruling saying, “We will not allow our client to lose any of his constitutional rights and it is important that we continue to seek justice publicly. We will not relent.”
“This decision does not change our view that the coroner’s verdict is egregiously wrong, unconstitutional and unjust. In affirming that verdict of the coroner, we continue to contend that the judge’s decision is also wrong for having breached Dr Griffith’s constitutional rights,” he added.
Moments after the ruling was given, Gollop told the media: “The decision is against the grain of both local and English authorities that a decision which follows clearly within the purview of a judge and jury cannot be given by a coroner so we will ask the Court of Appeal to speak on that.”
Thorne outlined that Griffith’s legal team had requested that Justice Wells recuse himself from the matter previously, but he had refused and that matter would be taken before the Court of Appeal on Wednesday.
In his 91-page written decision, Justice Wells addressed the recusal application saying the reasons for the court’s refusal were that there was no evidence of any cogent reasons for the application and the counsel’s submissions were without any evidence in support; that effective case management is not bias as the promise of promptness by a court to render a decision could never amount to apparent bias and; that the court has not decided on the merits of any facts arising from the underlying circumstances of Mr Mottley’s death.
“Having heard and adjudicated this recusal application, the court is of the firm view that it was one utterly and wholly impervious to reality and viability. There was no basis for it, and it had absolutely no merit,” the judicial officer stated.
The post High Court dismisses judicial review in Mottley death case appeared first on Barbados Today.
