A decision not to prosecute officials involved in decisions that led to a controversial raid on a medical clinic will be looked at again, a top lawyer told a Cayman court on Friday.
David Perry, KC, said that the Director of Public Prosecutions would examine the circumstances surrounding a police and customs raid on the Doctors Express urgent care centre, where legally-held cannabis products were seized in 2019.
Perry told a hearing in front of Justice Jalil Asif that the director had said “enough”.
“It’s for the parties to get on and for a decision to be made afresh,” Perry said.
“I hope that the parties are able to reach agreement – it’s important the parties reach an agreement as soon as possible.”
The five-year battle began after Doctors Express on Godfrey Nixon Road in George Town was raided a few days after it had advertised it was prescribing and supplying medical cannabis under licence.
A judge in 2021 ruled that the raid was unlawful and that that the search warrant that authorised it should be quashed.
The justice added that Dr. John Lee, chief medical officer at the time, had acted improperly when he issued a “cease notice” to ban cannabinoid products that could be vaporised.
Cayman Islands Urgent Care, which traded as Doctors Express, as well as manufacturers Kaiser Day Cannaceuticals and Kaiser Day Pharmaceuticals, joined forces to ask the director to charge those behind the raid.
But the DPP refused and Doctors Express and the other litigants asked for a judicial review to uncover why there had been no prosecutions.
Doctors Express and the pharmaceutical companies had asked for a judicial review against the head of customs, a justice of the peace, the police commissioner and the former chief medical officer, who were all believed to have been involved in the discussions that led to the seizures from the clinic.
Counsel for the other side also asked for all documents and emails not already released that involved the decision to target Doctors Express, but were told all had been disclosed and that an affidavit to that effect would be provided.
The counsel agreed that a “speedy resolution” was needed and added, “if the DPP is offering to provide the applicants with the decision they sought, a fresh decision … that is what we asked for”.
Asif ruled there had been no breach of an earlier disclosure order made by him.
He added that a judicial review application was “now academic” because the DPP intended to “remake the decision on charging”.
Related Videos
