Dr Bruce acquitted in 2007 assault case; Dr Hunter vows appeal

DR Carl Bruce breathed a sigh of relief on Monday after a judge found him not guilty of assault in a case brought by neurosurgeon Dr Roger Hunter nearly two decades ago. But the verdict has not gone down well with Dr Hunter who maintained that he was physically assaulted by Dr Bruce and said he will be filing an appeal. “I am very relieved that the judge looked at the evidence and found what we have said all along, that this was a fabrication; that he accepted that. We also think that the complainant should get some help,” Dr Bruce told the Jamaica Observer shortly after emerging from the St Andrew Parish Court. Dr Bruce was found not guilty on two counts: malicious destruction of property and assault at common law. The verdict was handed down by Parish Court Judge Alwayne Smith. Dr Bruce’s attorney, Tom Tavares-Finson, King’s Counsel, said he was pleased with the verdict and that his client can now return to his profession. “I was very impressed with the summing up of the judge. It was thorough, detailed, and extremely legalistic but sufficiently coherent that individuals, non-lawyers could understand clearly,” Tavares-Finson said.

HUNTER... I’m not making up anything

The allegations before the court were that on January 31, 2007, sometime after 12:00 pm, Dr Hunter, a consultant neurosurgeon, was in the planning room at University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI) preparing for surgery when the accused burst into the room and uttered the expletives: “What the f... are you doing in the planning room? Get the f... out of the planning room.” He allegedly then rushed towards Dr Hunter, who was standing, grabbed him by his tie and shirt, and pushed him away. He reportedly proceeded to hit him on his head, face, neck, and chest while shouting at him: “You are a f...ing fool,” before threatening to spit in his face. Dr Hunter testified that during the alleged assault, which reportedly lasted between 20 and 25 minutes, he had only his mobile phone in his hand and that at no time did he attack Dr Bruce. He further testified that his tie and shirt, valued at $8,000, were damaged. The matter was reported to the police in 2024 by Dr Hunter and was first mentioned in court last April, before the trial commenced in April this year, with Dr Hunter as the sole witness. Judge Smith, in handing down the judgment, explained that the defendant waited 18 years to make a complaint to the police, with no explanation for the delay, which placed the accused at a disadvantage in recounting the events of the incident. Additionally, he noted that despite Dr Hunter stating that he reported the matter to the human resources department the following week, with an inquiry conducted in 2007, no report of that inquiry was presented to the court. “In several occasions of giving the evidence Dr Hunter was keen to volunteer information which paint Dr Bruce in a negative professional or personal light. For example, he gave evidence that Dr Bruce abandoned his station. He gave evidence of a 2002 altercation which presents Dr Bruce as a professional bully, and he volunteered that Dr Bruce has attacked several women, at times with visible anger and rage. He gave personal evidence and demeanour towards the court, and clearly to defence counsel, and even his attitude to his own counsel that the court would have observed,” the judge outlined. “For example, he said, ‘He cannot walk in my shoes. He doesn’t even have a fellowship, he doesn’t even have an undergraduate honours degree in medicine at MMBS, and I am never jealous of that boy.’ He referred to him as a brute, that gorilla, that criminal, that boy,” Judge Smith added. The judge also pointed out that Dr Hunter made formal reports to both the Firearm Licensing Authority in 2024 and the Medical Council of Jamaica, based on reports received, without ever having seen Dr Bruce with a firearm. “None of the persons to whom he said he reported the matter gave evidence. There are no human resource records, no medical evidence, no photographs. I draw no inference as to what any such evidence might have been. The point is simply that his account stands alone, and the only independent evidence in the case — exhibit one — contradicts his account,” Justice Smith said. The judge noted that in a statement by Inspector Harvey Francis, the Crown’s only evidence, the inspector did not observe any tear or rip in Dr Hunter’s shirt or any damage to his tie. “When this evidence is compared to Dr Hunter’s description of the damage set out earlier in this judgment, the two cannot stand together. The Crown offered no reconciliation of this. This inconsistency leaves me in doubt as to what, if anything, happened to that shirt and tie on that day almost 19 years ago. “I note that the shirt and tie were handed to Inspector Harvey for inspection [but] they were never produced to the court and no reasons were given for their non-production. What is clear, by result of this inconsistency the prosecution has failed to prove that the shirt and tie were damaged at all,” Justice Smith said. On the matter of assault, Justice Smith said he found it implausible that after a non-stop assault spanning 20 to 25 minutes, the complainant described no injuries or sought medical attention. “Having reviewed the evidence in its totality and assessed the witness, Dr Hunter, his demeanour, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offences for which he is charged,” the judge said. Hunter’s attorney, Hugh Wildman, reacting to the judgment, told the Observer that his client’s conduct in court had worked against him. “The judge was of the view that he didn’t believe him because of how he was behaving in the witness box. He didn’t help his cause based on how he was behaving in court,” Wildman said. Meanwhile, Dr Hunter explained why he would be appealing the verdict. “I absolutely will appeal this case because I know 150 per cent that that man attacked me. That man abandoned his patient to attack me. I’m not making up anything. I’m not under any illusions. Harvey Francis 100 per cent called me back and told me that he missed the damage that was done to the shirt and the tie. That has to be admitted as evidence to this court, to a higher court,” Dr Hunter said.