UHWI medical chief of staff denies assaulting neurosurgeon

Medical chief of staff at the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI), Dr Carl Bruce, has rejected allegations that he assaulted colleague Dr Roger Hunter during a 2007 incident, describing the claims as “a complete falsification” while branding Hunter “mentally unstable”.

Bruce, a consultant neurosurgeon, made the assertion while giving an unsworn statement in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court, where he is on trial facing charges of malicious destruction of property and assault occasioning bodily harm.

“My colleague is clearly showing signs of mental instability, and no such incident took place recently or ever in the past,” Bruce told the court.

He added, “I have never owned a firearm, I have never been before the court, and the incident that allegedly took place here is a complete falsification.”

Hunter, also a well-known neurosurgeon, previously testified that Bruce attacked and assaulted him in an operating theatre in 2007. He said he was hit in the head and chest and punched in the face, and that Bruce also hurled expletives at him and threatened to spit in his face.

He further claimed his shirt and tie were damaged in the incident, which he reported in November 2024.

However, under cross-examination by King’s Counsel Tom Tavares-Finson, Hunter admitted that he had never told the police in his statement that Bruce had hit him in the head, chest, or punched him in the stomach.

He said he had given a detailed statement to the Firearm Licensing Authority, but that statement was not submitted to the court.

Hunter said he had been advised that Bruce was in possession of a firearm and acted on instructions from senior police officials to make the report, though he conceded he had never seen Bruce with a firearm.

He denied making the report out of malice, claiming Bruce, whom he called “brute”, “boy”, “gorilla”, and “criminal”, “cannot walk in his shoes” and that he was “not jealous of that boy”.

At the end of the proceedings, Tavares-Finson made a no-case submission, urging the court to dismiss the case, arguing that there was no physical evidence to support the allegations.

“At this stage, the witness has been so discredited that no reasonable juror could rely on his evidence.”

He pointed primarily to a statement from an inspector, agreed by both parties, in which the officer said he observed the tie and shirt and did not see any tear, rip, lost button, or damage.

Hunter, however, intervened at that point, saying that was not correct as the officer had told him that he had seen the damage.

Continuing, Tavares-Finson also argued that there was no medical report or photograph to substantiate Hunter’s claim.

Additionally, he submitted that the prolonged delay in reporting the matter undermined its reliability and raised serious questions about credibility.

He told the court: “Seventeen years after this alleged incident has taken place, a statement is made to the police, and this boy is brought before the court.”

“Seventeen years after, and in the statement that he gave to the police, not one word was mentioned about this brutal attack that this gorilla was supposed to have conducted on him. Not one word about it.”

Tavares-Finson further submitted that the complainant had demonstrated “palpable” hostility toward Bruce, pointing to language he said was used in reference to his client, including “brute”, “boy”, “gorilla”, and “criminal”. 

He said, “If that does not evince malice, then I don’t know what malice is.”

In response, prosecutor Hugh Wildman rejected the defence argument, maintaining that the case should proceed to trial. 

“This is not a statute-bar case. None of these offences are statute-barred. And so, the issue of how long [ago] the incident occurred is irrelevant.”

He argued that the complainant had given detailed testimony that should be assessed in its totality, adding that allegations of malice were not supported by evidence, saying, “Suggestion is not evidence.”

Wildman also said the police statement issue was “neither here nor there”, and maintained that what was put to the witness regarding the alleged assault was not challenged.

He further submitted that Bruce’s unsworn statement strengthened the prosecution’s case and urged the court to find him guilty on the totality of the evidence.

He also rejected Bruce’s assertion that his client was mentally unstable, saying there was no evidence of that before the court. He, however, conceded that there seemed to be some professional jealousy between the parties.

At the end of both the defence’s and prosecution’s cases, the presiding judge advised that he would hand down his verdict on September 21, along with reasons.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com