Court Of Appeal Sets Aside Abuse Of Process Ruling Made By The Grand Court In Favour of McKeeva Bush. Indecent Assault Case Now Goes Back To The Grand Court For Retrial, However, The DPP Has The Discretion Whether To Retry The Case.

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Alric Lindsay

On July 11, 2025, the Hon. Justice Peters, sitting as a judge of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal, delivered a judgment in the case of His Majesty the King v William McKeeva Bush. The Court of Appeal set aside the Grand Court’s decision to halt indecent assault proceedings against Bush and remitted the case to the Grand Court for a retrial. However, the Hon. Justice Peters noted that it is up to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether a retrial is now in the public interest, bearing in mind, amongst other things, that considerable time has now passed since the events. The Court of Appeal judgment is also of interest because it suggested that the DPP may bring a case against a person even if the victim doesn’t wish to do so.

Background

Regarding the background, the case involved allegations of indecent assault against two women by Bush while he was at a reception for delegates attending a conference under the umbrella of the Caribbean Tourist Organization at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in September 2022. Bush allegedly hugged one woman and kissed her on the shoulder. In the case of the other woman, Bush allegedly gave her a love bite (hickey”) on her arm or wrist.

The indecent assault proceedings were halted by the Honourable Mr. Justice Stanley John in 2024, ruling that the DPP had engaged in an abuse of process. This was on the basis that “the prosecutorial system was being misused by person/s with their own agenda” and “The manner in which the Prosecution was conducted in relation to [Y] caused the Court a great deal of disquiet.”

The DPP went to the Court of Appeal and appealed the abuse of process ruling. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the DPP and set aside the Grand Court’s ruling, which resulted in the halting of proceedings against Bush.

The Court of Appeal reached its conclusion by analysing what a judge is required to do to establish that there is an abuse of process and halt proceedings.

The Court of Appeal judgment, as delivered by the Hon. Justice Peters, explained that the decision-making process involves:

** The judge setting up what, on the balance of probabilities, he finds has been proved for abuse of process

** The judge reaching a view on whether the integrity of the justice system has been compromised to an unacceptable degree.

** How, in all those circumstances, the balancing exercise should be resolved, always bearing in mind that a halting of proceedings must be a last resort.

Reportedly, the Court of Appeal did not see anything in the Grand Court judgment to indicate that the Grand Court judge reached his decision in a structured way.

In addition, the Grand Court judge did not set out in necessary detail what was being proved or explain how that compromised the criminal justice system to an unacceptable degree. Lastly, there was nothing to suggest that the Grand Court judge carried out any balancing exercise and instead, only said that the prosecution system was being misused.

In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal judgment reportedly concluded that, while the Court of Appeal accepts that it should be slow to interfere with the exercise of the judicial discretion in the Grand Court, the Court of Appeal is “bound to set aside the judge’s order for a stay” for the reasons explained above.

The Court of Appeal judgment also reportedly analysed the fact that, in the Grand Court case, one of the alleged indecent assault victims did not consent to the prosecution being brought against Bush. Regarding this, the Court of Appeal judgment reportedly concluded as follows:

The public interest may justify, particularly in the context of allegations of sexual misconduct, that a prosecution be brought even in the face of the contradictions of the complainant.

And furthermore, the fact that a complainant may not think what happened amounted to an offence is not determinative of whether or not it does.

In other words, it does not appear to be up to a victim to determine whether a case will proceed once in the hands of the Government’s lawyers. That discretion seems to be left with the DPP.

The DPP now has until September 2025 to decide whether to retry Bush in the Grand Court.