11 weeks ago, we took you to the Supreme Court for the separate lawsuits which UDP's Hugo Patt and Former Prime Minister Dean Barrow brought against the Commission of Inquiry into the Sale of Government Assets.
Both Patt and Barrow have made claims for massive sums which they want the Supreme Court to award them in damages because they insisted that the Commission committed fatal missteps in proper procedure which resulted in the violation of their rights to natural justice. They attempted to convince the court that the Commission published their final report without allowing them to defend their reputation and personal integrity.
Months ahead of Justice Lisa Shoman's written judgment, she granted certain declarations and orders that were favorable to Hugo Patt's case. In his case, the Commission failed to send him what is known as a "Salmon Letter", which would have allowed him an opportunity to try and convince them that their negative conclusions about him were wrong. He was never allowed to rebut their findings of his role in the disposal of his one-time government ride, a Toyota Tacoma. The judge also granted an order that the parts of the report which injured Patt's reputation and integrity needed to be redacted.
Over the course the almost 3 months, Justice Shoman carefully considered the arguments made by both Patt's attorney and the Government of Belize of just how much damages he should be paid for the Commission's missteps. His attorney, Former PM Barrow, attempted to convince the judge that he should get somewhere in the vicinity of 100 thousand dollars in compensatory damages and an additional 200 thousand dollars in vindicatory damages.
The government's legal team countered in the lawsuit that Patt should get far less than those amounts, and after careful consideration, Justice Shoman has ruled that he is entitled to a little less than half of the sum he asked for. She thinks that he should be paid a total sum of 145 thousand dollars for the defamation of his character.
In her decision, which was handed down this morning, the judge said, quote, "Given the Claimant's evidence, the nature and extent of the distress and injury, as well as to the stature and standing of the Claimant in Belize, I, therefore, award the Claimant the sum of$95,000.00Belize Dollars
It must be noted that even though the breachwas grave,givenall the attendant circumstances of this case; the manner and form in which the 4thDefendant has chosen to respond to this claim has been commendable. I will exercise the discretion, and I will award the sum of$50,000.00 Belize Dollars as vindicatory damages, which I believe meets thejusticeof the case. " End quote.
That adds up to 145 grand - a huge award by any account - and, once more, this one's on taxpayers!
Shortly before midday, we got an extended, sit-down interview with Patt's attorney, Dean Barrow to discuss Patt's award. Here's what he had to say:
Dean Barrow, SC - Attorney For Hugo Patt
"You, of course, know that we had already agreed, or the other side had long since conceded that his constitutional rights had been breached because the Commission came to their findings and issued their reports without having given him a chance properly to address those findings. So, in his case, the issue that remained, the issue that was joined between ourselves and the other side, was really only the question of damages. There again, the other side had pretty much conceded that he was due damages. So, the argument was really over the quantum. The other side had suggested that he was entitled, at best, to perhaps 40 or $50,000. We were saying, of course, that he deserved far more. The judge agreed with us and, in fact, awarded him a total of $145,000 broken down into two. He got $95,000 as compensatory damages and $50,000 as vindicatory damages. That was also a bone of contention between myself and Mr. Mendez on the other side. He was saying, look, all he's entitled to is compensatory damages. He should not as well get an award in vindication. I was able to persuade the judge that because the breaches of his rights by this Commission were so egregious, so absolutely grievous, so outlandish, a vindicatory award was as well necessary both to, as it were, further assuage the wrongdoing but also in order to send a message to future commissions of inquiry. You cannot do this sort of thing. You cannot disregard and violate people's rights at all, and when you do so to a degree that is extreme, you, in fact, must pay the price accordingly."
As viewers will remember, the government's lead attorney, QC Douglas Mendez, attempted to convince the judge in the April hearings that Patt did not clearly demonstrate the injury to his character that he was claiming in the lawsuit. The judge specifically referred to differences of opinion on that element, which played a role in the final sum she awarded to the former Deputy Prime Minister in damages. We asked his attorney about that:
Dean Barrow, SC
"The judge had no difficulty in rejecting Mr. Mendez's submission that Mr. Patt had not provided enough by way of evidence as to the distress that he was caused by the Commission's findings. In a formulation that I found especially striking, especially felicitous, the judge said it is difficult to see how he could have done more in this regard, short of producing a violin and playing a tune. I thought that was - I love that particular expression, that particular use of language by the judge, but in effect, she then set out all of that. He had said how his people in his own village had started to turn their backs on him, how the media bombarded him, and how in effect, his family and friends suffered because of the ostracism, and how he was in terror. Because, of course, the Commission had recommended that their report be sent to the DPP for possible criminal prosecution. How the language of the Commission, the report of the Commission also spoke to the possibility of his losing his seat. He put it all together and said that he was absolutely devastated. He was utterly humiliated and destroyed, not just in the immediate aftermath of the report but in the longer term as he began to reflect on the possible effect. What the Commission said would play regarding his future as a politician and as an area representative for the course of the North constituency. So the judge had no difficulty in saying that he had more. He had done more than enough to underline the extreme injury that had been done to him by the publication of the findings of the Commission."
