A judge has ordered the Cayman police service to pay a lawyer more than US$91,000 after ruling it was liable for his costs in a legal battle over a search warrant after a judicial review.
Justice Jalil Asif KC said there were “serious and substantive and procedural failures in obtaining and executing the search warrant” against attorney Keith Myers, who was represented by barrister Nicholas Dixey.
He added that police conduct had been “improper, unreasonable or negligent …” and that the service had ignored clear directions from the court.
Asif said in his written judgment that there had been “a total failure” by police to consider Myers’ legal privilege, which “needed to be handled carefully and sensitively”.
Myers, whose claim against police was largely settled earlier before a trial, was awarded the cash to cover expenses run up to his legal action against police, the second respondent, and Arek Joseph, a Justice of the Peace, listed as the first.
Police failures
Asif said there were “serious and substantive and procedural failures in obtaining and executing the search warrant” against Myers, who was represented by barrister Nicholas Dixey.
He added, “It seems to me that throughout the conduct of the second respondent’s defence of these proceedings the second respondent should have recognised that position.
“Applying the overriding objective and also applying the duty on a respondent in a public law claim to stand back and look critically at its own decision-making, the second respondent should have recognised at a very early stage that this case was essentially indefensible, and it was not just a weak case.
“On the material that is before the court, it does not appear that the second respondent did any of that until one week before the trial was due to take place.
“In those circumstances, I conclude, and I accept Mr. Dixey’s submission, that the second respondent’s conduct of the public law aspects of this case has been, improper, unreasonable or negligent … .”
Asif added, “It seems to me that it was unreasonable for the second respondent to concede that the warrant was defective but at the same time not to concede the applicant’s wider claim in November 2024, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the deficiencies in obtaining and executing the search warrant, which should have been apparent and obvious to anyone reviewing the underlying merits of the claim that was being advanced at that stage.”
Lack of explanation
The judge said that, until the skeleton argument put forward by Tim Parker SC, equivalent to a KC in the Hong Kong special administrative region of China, there had “never been any substantive explanation for the second respondent’s position that has been put forward”.
He added, “I bear in mind that the second respondent was directed to file a skeleton argument in advance of the trial and simply did not do so.
“When I was informed that the second respondent was trying to resolve the matter, I made clear that that did not relieve the second respondent of its obligation, as ordered, to file a skeleton argument and directed that it should do so as soon as possible.
“The second respondent still did not file any skeleton argument and took a further two to three days, during which period I repeated my request for the second respondent’s skeleton, before the matter was finally resolved by way of a consent order.”
A consent order is a legally binding document that formalises agreement between parties to a legal action.
Improper police conduct
Asif added, “I have concluded … that the second respondent’s conduct of the defence of the applicant’s public law claim is improper.
“It was unreasonable to a high degree and to the extent that it is necessary to say so, I do say that it was outside what I would expect to be the norm for the conduct of a respondent to judicial review proceedings.
Myers was awarded the cash to cover “fee earner time” of about US$85,000 and US$6,700 for “disbursements that have been made by the applicant” in his legal action against the two respondents.
Related Videos
