110 responses to “Magistrate Bannister Files Complaint Against Andrew Pilgrim QC for ‘think a fucking gain’ Comment”

1. 

   pieceuhderockyeahright

   May 12, 2018 at 1:59 am

   
   

   @The Honourable Blogmaster

   Dr ole man submitted an item on this Pilgrim matter which is in suspense and would appreciate if you would retrieve it Thanks

   Loading…
2. 

   TheoGazerts

   May 12, 2018 at 4:33 am

   
   

   A word of advice
   Forget it.
   It’s going to be a beautiful day
   Wishing ALL Bajans a great day

   Loading…
3. 

   Well Well & Cut N’ Paste At Your Service

   May 12, 2018 at 5:41 am

   
   

   Can’t blame the CCJ or the accused murderer for that, the blame lies with the sentencing judge who did not follow established guidelines for sentencing, and ignored those guidelines to sentence based on emotions, the appeals court made the same stupid error in not reversing the sentence before it reached the CCJ.

   Once again, the supreme court is being exposed for incompetence, they have once again been warned to follow precedents, that is why they exist and are called precedents.

   Don’t know what it’s going to take for those at the supreme court to do their jobs competently and strip themselves of their personal opinions while doing so.

   Loading…
4. 

   Well Well & Cut N’ Paste At Your Service

   May 12, 2018 at 5:52 am

   
   

   Piece…hence the reason I said that the lawyers who still have ethics, morals and who still fight for justice and for the supreme court, subordinate courts and judiciary to function as they should….though small in numbers, all have a sworn duty to not only expose magistrates and judges with the mindset of the tyrant Graveney…. (as barbadostoday is doing, can you imagine that, did ya ever think ya would see that in our lifetime lol)……but to start cleaning up the judiciary now given the opportunity by the not too bright Bannister who has had a really long run violating the rights of accuseds by denying them their day in court….in his collusion with the police who never have a file to present for cases to move things along.

   Loading…
5. 

   bajans

   May 12, 2018 at 12:40 pm

   
   

   @Whitehill, seems I stepped on your corns…..all of them. hahahahaha! How many women dumped you? Were you left at the altar too? By the way, don’t reply. You seem to be near a heart attack or stroke. hahahaha!

   Loading…
6. 

   bajans

   May 12, 2018 at 12:43 pm

   
   

   @Whitehill, except for those babies who were born of C-sections, all men had to pass through a woman’s vagina. Think about it. It therefore gives us the RIGHT to say what we want to, AND, about men. We brought all of you into this here world that you men persist in screwing up. Tek dat.

   Loading…
7. 

   Well, Well

   May 12, 2018 at 3:12 pm

   
   

   We brought them into the world and can damn well take them out too.

   Loading…
8. 

   Well, Well

   May 12, 2018 at 6:59 pm

   
   

   I guess even tyrants on a magistrate’s bench can learn something from this..

   https://www.facebook.com/TED/videos/10160021911100652/?t=57

   Loading…
9. 

   Hal Austin

   May 14, 2018 at 1:53 am

   
   

   Omar Lawreston Hall, 30, of 2nd Avenue Chapman Lane, St Michael, had been charged with robbing Andrea Headley of a $1 500 chain belonging to Leandra Headley on March 9, 2010. He was also accused of robbing Latoya Best of two gold chains worth $1 950, a $2 000 wedding band and a $2 000 gold pendant a month later on April 9. Two weeks later, he was charged with robbing Carol-Ann Roett of a $650 chain and 12 rings worth $4 690 on April 24.
   He was not required to plead to the indictable charges, and over the eight-year period had three separate lawyers represent him.
   On June 24, 2010, he was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis, and intent to supply and traffic in the illegal drug. He pleaded not guilty and was granted $15 000 bail two days later.
   He was placed on a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew from Monday to Thursday, ordered to stay indoors from 6 p.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Monday, to report to Central Police Station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and banned from all Crop Over events.
   When he appeared before Magistrate Douglas Frederick last Wednesday, Queen’s Counsel Andrew Pilgrim reminded the court that day had been marked as the date for final adjournment of the matter.
   He said the prosecution was to decide whether it was going forward with the robbery cases or not, although they had been dismissed on a previous occasion.
   When prosecutor Sergeant Rudy Pilgrim could not produce the file, the magistrate dismissed the case, saying 2010 to 2018 was a long time(Quote)

   Another example of a system not fit for purpose. How are our political parties to sort this out?

   Loading…
10. 

    David

    November 30, 2025 at 1:51 pm

    
    

    High Court quashes coroner’s verdict in Warren Mottley death case
    written by Emmanuel Joseph Updated by Barbados Today 29/11/2025

    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.

    AdvertisementAD
    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.

    You Might Be Interested In
    Crystal Beckles-Holder, 2nd runner up in regional competition
    GUYANA: Body of child found after gold mine collapses
    Barbadians asked to help with return tickets for Haitians
    “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)

    Source: BT

    Loading…