A High Court judge last month dismissed the application by Irish tycoon, John McManus, for judicial review against former coroner Graveney Bannister, who conducted an inquest into the death of his wife Emma McManus.
Emma died on December 29, five years ago while they were vacationing in Barbados.
On November 28, Justice H. Patrick Wells dismissed all of the grounds of the application for judicial review and ordered cost to be paid to Bannister, who has since retired from the bench.
McManus through his attorneys Ravi Rajcoomar, S.C., Philip McWatt and Satcha Kissoon, brought the action challenging the coroner’s conduct and decisions in relation to the inquest. McManus complained that the coroner’s actions (such as delivering a verdict without notice, failing to “allow” crossexamination of a key expert and allegedly acting contrary to the Coroners Act) were unlawful, unreasonable and or made in bad faith.
Tainted by bias
The application further alleged breaches of natural justice; abuse of power and misfeasance in public office and asserted that the coroner’s verdict was tainted by bias and unsupported by the evidence.
In September 2023, Bannister ruled that 40-year-old Emma died suddenly from ‘unnatural’ causes that were ‘cocaine associated’.
The high profile couple and their three children arrived in Barbados on December 14, 2020 and were expected to leave on January 8. They were staying at the familyowned villa in St James. On the night of December 29, McManus said he found his wife lying dead in their bed.
A toxicology report from the Trinidad and Tobago Forensic Science Centre dated February 10, 2021 found the presence of Benzoylecgonine and Ecgonine Methyl Ester, the main metabolites of cocaine.
Second post mortem
However, a second post mortem conducted by Barbados pathologist Dr Stephen Jones conducted on February 1, 2021, at the request of McManus found that she died as a result of “aspiration of food material”, on account of “vegetable material . . . seen in the lumina of numerous bronchi”; and “fatty change of the liver”.
McManus, who had previously brought an appeal against a decision by the High Court not to halt the inquest, in his application contended that the coroner should have halted the inquest pending the determination of the Appeal Court; that the coroner was bound by the principle of equitable forbearance; that the Coroner denied him his legitimate expectation to have the inquest paused until the appeal in the previous litigation was determined; and that the Coroner acted illegally by concluding the inquest as he did; by not having crossexamination of a particular witness; and by not following what is proffered as the “procedures” under the Coroners Act.
Bannister, who was represented by Roger Forde, S.C. and Fianne Best, charged that he did not give any undertaking not to continue the inquest pending the determination of the appeal in the previous High Court matter related to the inquest. To that extent, he did not create any legitimate expectation that such would occur. He further submitted that the conduct of the inquest was a matter for his discretion, and in that regard, he was entitled to deliver his verdict when he did as he pointed out that he considered all the medical evidence, including the report of consultant pathologist, Dr Corinthian Dupuis, which disclosed that needle tracks were seen on the body of the deceased and that such needle tracks suggested a history of drug abuse.
In addition, he further noted that while he considered the evidence of Jones, which suggested that Emma died from natural causes, he preferred the evidence of Dupuis.
No place in review
Wells agreed with Bannister that the claim for equitable forbearance had absolutely no place in judicial review proceedings.
He stated: “The court agrees entirely with the respondent on this score and reiterates what judicial review is really about, as a progeny of administrative/public law. The court therefore dismisses the arguments premised on equitable forbearance advanced by the applicant.”
He also agreed that the coroner did not deny McManus a legitimate expectation to have the inquest paused until the appeal was determined.
“I agree entirely with this arguments by the respondent,” Justice Wells said. “There is absolutely no evidence before this court that the learned Coroner, as the public authority, made any representation or promise of any delay in the proceedings, to the applicant, pending any appeal. Equally important as well for the court is that the inquest is an investigation, which has no parties and as such, as an individual to whom the Coroner had no obligation (as he was not even someone in potential jeopardy from the police statements), any claim of legitimate expectation of the Coroner cannot be properly grounded.”
In terms of the argument that the Coroner acted illegally by concluding the inquest as he did; by not having crossexamination of a particular witness and by not following what is proffered as the “procedures” under the Coroners Act, the judge stated: “In the view of the court, nothing here has merit. As stated earlier, the inquest is an investigation. It is not a trial. In the absence of any particular Rules of Court setting out any rigid procedural regime for the conduct of the inquest, procedural matters are for the Coroner. The only requirement in law is that the Coroner must be fair to all concerned.
“The problem for the claimant here is that he has no proof that he ever made any such request and that the Coroner denied that request. There was a lapse in the proceedings between the filing of the first High Court case concerning this inquest, and the delivery of the verdict, and as such, any request that the applicant had, could easily have been communicated to the Coroner, as he had counsel. No such request was made, as far as the evidence seen by this court shows.”
Justice Wells stated: “Having arrived at the findings and conclusions that I have, the court makes the following orders. The application of M John Paul McManus is dismissed in its entirety. Judgment is entered for the respondent. The applicant shall pay costs to the respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.”
(MB)
