A lawyer convicted of stealing $483,000 from clients is suing the Government for $5 million.

Tyrone Quinn sought constitutional damages, as well as costs and other relief, in a civil suit filed this month in the Supreme Court.

It lists the Attorney-General of Bermuda as defendant.

Quinn was found guilty in November 2023 after a trial in the Supreme Court of stealing from three former clients.

The civil writ stated that he filed an appeal against conviction the next day.

The claim alleges a breach of Quinn’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, as guaranteed under Section 6 of the Bermuda Constitution.

The claim, filed in-person on October 2, said that Quinn appeared before the Court of Appeal in March 2024, the month he was sentenced to 15 years behind bars for thefts committed between May 2020 and February 2021.

It alleges that “substantial time elapsed while the record of appeal was being prepared and settled, relevant proceedings were transcribed and deficiencies in the material necessary for the appeal were addressed”.

It added that the Court of Appeal had ordered that a record be given to Quinn as soon as possible.

The case was to return to court after he received “outstanding transcripts of applications and rulings made during the first day of trial”.

The writ claimed that Quinn’s appeal was not heard in June, despite being expected to proceed.

It added that “additional delay arose in obtaining the trial judge’s notes, arranging their transcription and securing their verification and approval by the trial judge”.

The outstanding documents were said to contain several grounds of appeal.

These included Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe’s refusal to recuse himself from hearing the trial and his dismissal of Quinn’s abuse of process application — for which it is alleged that no written reason was ever given.

It also referenced Mr Justice Wolffe’s interventions during the plaintiff’s evidence and questioning of Crown witnesses “on matters which the prosecution had not pursued”.

The writ added that other outstanding material includes the refusal of Quinn’s application concerning the indictment and the route to verdict, as well as reasons for Mr Justice Wolffe’s sentencing, which the plaintiff called “relevant to his allegation of apparent bias”.

The claim stated that documents already available to Quinn were “insufficient to establish fully the relevant rulings, reasons and judicial interventions”, and that the outstanding material concerned proceedings conducted “by the same trial judge whose apparent impartiality and conduct are challenged”.

The writ further stated that Acting Registrar Cratonia Thompson ruled Quinn’s case could be heard by the Court of Appeal over two days from November 23 — if Mr Justice Wolffe’s verified notes were received by September 30.

Quinn’s writ claimed he failed to get the notes in time for the November hearing.

He alleged several other breaches of his constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

Quinn highlighted the prolonging of the appeal, the lack of substantive hearings since the case’s launch almost three years ago, delays in “preparing, transcribing, completing and settling” the record, his continued incarceration and the “uncertainty associated with the unresolved appeal” over his several attempts to progress the case.

Quinn’s claim said he sought compensation for the constitutional wrong.

It added: “The plaintiff contends that, in the particular circumstances, the ordinary appellate machinery has not provided adequate redress to the separate constitutional injury arising from the accumulated delay.

“The proposed November hearing, if it ultimately proceeds, cannot retrospectively eliminate any constitutional infringement already sustained.”

Quinn seeks $5 million for damages, or a sum considered appropriate by the court, as well as “insofar as justified, additional vindicatory damages” under Section 15 of the Bermuda Constitution.

He also requests declarations that prolonging his appeal violated his constitutional rights, that failing to produce the outstanding documents by the agreed deadline contributed to that breach and that “adequate alternative redress” has not been available to him through the ordinary appeal process.

The plaintiff further seeks costs, liberty to rely on “further evidence of continuing delay or additional prejudice”, other orders or directions the court deemed appropriate and within its constitutional jurisdiction and any additional relief considered just by the court.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: “As this matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for the Attorney-General to comment on the claim or the issues it raises.

“The Government will respond to the application through the proper court process.”

• 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