High Court quashes coroner’s verdict in Warren Mottley death case

The High Court has quashed the verdict of Coroner Graveney Bannister for finding that anaesthesiologist Dr Nigel Farnum was “criminally concerned with the death” of Warren Douglas Mottley, brother of Prime Minister Mia Mottley, some four years ago.

In handing down the decision on Friday, Justice H. Patrick Wells declared that the verdict was ‘Wednesbury’ unreasonable and irrational.

The judge explained that ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.

The legal action, brought by Dr Farnum, sought judicial review of the procedures and outcome of the inquest into the death of Mottley that was conducted by Coroner Bannister.

In the main, the claimant advanced that the learned Coroner had no basis for finding in his verdict that he (Dr Farnum) was in effect criminally concerned with the death of Mottley.

“Having found that the verdict of the coroner was Wednesbury unreasonable and irrational,” Justice Well stated, “it behooves the court to determine the way forward. I hold that no new inquest shall be held, as the law indicates that this is not to be ordered if there is no prospect of any new evidence regarding this applicant emerging that would change the outcome.”

“My determination on the verdict, regarding this particular applicant, is not a question of the need for additional evidence; it is instead about my view that the rationale of the coroner, on why he determined that this applicant in particular was in effect criminally concerned, did not meet the test for reasonableness and rationality set out in the law,” the judge declared.

He added: “To that extent, the issue is not evidentiary in nature, but rather, a question of reasoning on the part of the Coroner, in light of the evidence that he had, to arrive at the verdict that he did, in relation to this particular applicant. Ordering a new inquest does not address that issue, as all that a new inquest would do, in this regard, is to give the coroner a second chance to make a first impression on his reasoning regarding this particular applicant.  That would be a squandering of time and other resources and not in the public interest, and as such, there shall be no new inquest.”

“I have found,” the jurist ruled, “that there was no breach of natural justice or any illegality engaged in by the coroner in the inquest relative to this applicant before me. I have, however, found that the verdict of the coroner as regards this particular applicant was unreasonable and irrational.”

Judge Wells therefore ordered that: “The verdict of the coroner in respect of the applicant before the court in this matter is quashed and certiorari shall issue, as the verdict relating to him specifically, is unreasonable and irrational; all other aspects of the application for judicial review are dismissed; there shall be no new inquest held in respect of this matter; and each party shall bear their own cost.”

Dr Farnum’s evidence is that on June 27, 2021, at the request of Dr Sahle Griffith of Surgical Solutions Inc. (SSI), located at Warrens, St Michael, he consulted on providing oversight of anaesthesiology services to Mottley, a patient of Dr Griffith’s, following a colonoscopy done five days earlier.

On the said June 27, 2021, Dr Farnum states that he, together with Dr Stefan Sobers, a second anaesthesiologist, reviewed Mottley’s preoperative laboratory results and CT abdomen scans, and both administered anaesthetic to the patient in surgery. In Dr Farnum’s view, this went uneventfully.

The claimant also said that on June 28, 2021, he was contacted by a resident physician of SSI and was informed that Mottley was exhibiting symptoms of intermittent hypertension and urinary output and was complaining of abdominal pain.

He says he advised an immediate treatment regime of fluids and painkillers and continued monitoring. Thereafter, Dr Farnum indicates that he had no further involvement in the treatment of Mottley.

To the foregoing extent, therefore, Dr Farnum complained that there was no basis for the verdict of the coroner to state that he “failed to diagnose or misdiagnosed Warren Mottley or failed to treat an infection or shock; there was a breach of duty which gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death; the conduct was an egregious failure to exhibit the minimum standard of care; otherwise put, I find that the conduct of…[Dr Farnum] was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission and that …[he was] grossly negligent.”

In his evidence, relative to the claim that he did not comply with section 15(2) of the Coroner’s Act, to read the evidence of the applicant to him and have that evidence subscribed to, the coroner states, “I deny the allegations.” This affidavit evidence was not tested by the applicant, as the coroner was not cross-examined.

The coroner continues that he took copious notes of Dr Farnum’s evidence.  The coroner also denies that the applicant had no counsel and states, “I am also aware that the applicant [Dr Farnum] was represented by counsel…”

Regarding the complaint about, in effect, insufficient evidence, and absence of notes from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and a toxicology report, the coroner’s evidence in response is that he “obtained relevant information from… [the hospital]… [and that he] considered the evidence of the experts who had access to all relevant information and rendered opinions as to the cause of death”.

With specific reference to a toxicology report, the evidence of the coroner is that he was “advised by the forensic pathologist Dr Paul [was] that there was no need for a toxicology report”.

“Turning next,” Justice Well said, “to what appears from the submissions at the trial to be the major issue for the applicant, that the verdict of the coroner, insofar as it concerned this specific applicant, was unreasonable and lacked a proper rationale (irrationality), the coroner refutes this and asserts that there was a basis for his verdict in respect of the applicant.”

Attorney at law Calvin Hope represented Dr Farnum, while Roger Forde, SC, Gayl Scott and Nicole Boyce appeared for the respondents – Bannister and the Attorney General. (EJ)