A lawyer has made an application to dismiss a case involving longstanding corruption charges against former Premier Ewart Brown on the grounds of abuse of process.

Jerome Lynch, King’s Counsel, submitted that significant delays in an investigation into Dr Brown were hampering his client’s right to a fair trial and that, given “adverse publicity” throughout the process, the defendant was unable to secure a fair trial based on a breach of his right to the presumption of innocence.

Mr Lynch also argued that proceeding with the case “should offend the court’s sense of justice of propriety”.

The case, held via Zoom, is being presided over by Martin Forde, King’s Counsel, over three days.

During the first sitting yesterday, Mr Lynch said he sought a permanent stay, both under the Bermuda Constitution and at common law, on a six-year investigation against Dr Brown and his healthcare businesses.

Dr Brown has been accused of 13 counts of corruption, including five related to agreements with the Lahey Clinic between 2001 and 2010.

The remaining eight charges relate to allegations of corruptly obtaining donations between 2007 and 2010.

Mr Lynch said: “This application is not predicated entirely on delay; it is far more fundamental and far reaching.”

He said the call for a permanent stay of the indictment was made on “three bases both under the constitution and at common law”.

“Firstly, that the defendant’s inability to get a fair trial is based on the breach of the right to the presumption of innocence.

“Secondly, the defendant’s inability to get a fair trial is based, in part, on delay.

“Thirdly, that it should offend the court’s sense of justice of propriety for the case to proceed against this defendant at this time.”

Mr Lynch said that a stay of the indictment could arguably be made on the basis of delay alone. He added: “The longer the delay, the less likely a defendant will get a fair trial.”

However, Mr Lynch said that given the high-profile nature of the case against the former Progressive Labour Party leader, who was the subject of widespread negative publicity, there would be no chance Dr Brown could be assured a fair trial.

Mr Lynch said: “The adverse publicity cannot be ignored and it … will need to be added to the overall consideration of whether the defendant can have a fair trial.”

He said this aspect of the submission was about the “breach of the constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence of every defendant”.

Mr Lynch acknowledged that, in the view of the Crown, a stay is the last resort. However, he maintained that the last resort had been reached.

“Where do we have to get to? These are serious charges, some of which are alleged to have taken place when the defendant was premier of this country.”

Mr Lynch said his client had been negatively affected personally, politically, socially commercially and financially.

Mr Lynch referenced a slew of events he described as “a drip-feed of the erosion of the defendant’s rights” dating back to at least 2011.

Mr Lynch said: “They strike at the fundamental right that we all cherish, that a man must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty …

“You may think there is no one in Bermuda who does not have a view of the defendant and you would be right …

“Here there has been a drip-feed over a sustained period, that has gone to the heart of undermining the presumption of innocence, making a fair trial impossible and undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system.”

Dr Brown was premier from 2006 to 2010.

The case continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers