Barrow Satisfied with Damages; Marshalleck Says Claim was Exaggerated

Dean Barrow

The decision of Justice Lisa Shoman to award former Prime Minister Dean Barrow one hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars in damages adds to an already hefty payout that the Briceño administration has to cover, following a botched commission of inquiry. The public hearings held in 2021 to investigate the fire sale of government assets under the previous administration, produced a controversial report that resulted in a pair of lawsuits being filed in the Supreme Court. That’s because former Deputy Prime Minister Hugo Patt was equally successful last week in a defamation claim brought in the wake of the report being published. Taken together, the quantum in damages amounts to roughly three hundred and thirty thousand dollars, to be paid out of the public purse, despite talks of an appeal. Earlier today, News Five spoke with Dean Barrow in his capacity as a claimant. We also spoke with Senior Counsel Andrew Marshalleck who chaired the commission of inquiry.

Dean Barrow, Claimant

“I’m well-satisfied, I think the award is entirely appropriate.  I know that my counsel, to whom I’m greatly indebted, had put forward a suggested amount at the highest, top most reaches of the scale.  There is a range that you arrive at when you look at cases of a similar nature, the problem is that no facts, no two sets of facts will be identical.  And so, there is a great deal of latitude given to the judge in looking at the range.  We had put forward submission, in fact trying to point to the judge to the topmost end of the scale, but what the judge ultimately did, I think, is absolutely fair and I am therefore, very well satisfied. While we, therefore, had every right to suggest, to submit to the judge that we would have wanted an award at the other end of the scale, I repeat that what the judge gave was fair, adequate and I have absolutely no complaints.

Isani Cayetano

“Some people would point to this whole process as either a monumental failure or perhaps there were certain key blunders on the part of its leadership.”

Andrew Marshalleck

Andrew Marshalleck, Chair, Commission of Inquiry

“Well, there may be some truth in some of that, but the commission was formed and there were calls to convene a commission in order to look at potential mismanagement at the highest levels and when you engage in that kind of activity, this is the kind of scrutiny and risks that are run.  It is necessarily the case that the kinds of people in respect of whom the reports would have looked at their conduct, aren’t the kind of people that are going to lay down and take whatever result is issued.  It will be examined minutely and any error will be exaggerated, twisted and spun. And that’s no different in this case.”