By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS
Tribune Staff Reporter
lmunnings@tribunemedia.net
ATTORNEY General Wayne Munroe is facing a wave of backlash over plans to reduce the compensation awarded to a man left permanently paralysed by a police bullet, with critics saying the state owes compassion and fairness to someone disabled by one of its own officers.
Mr Munroe has said the government will appeal to reduce Thorne Clarke's $941,893.91 award unless he agrees to have his National Insurance Board (NIB) benefits deducted, arguing that failing to account for benefits covering the same losses was an error of law.
Former Free National Movement Senator Maxine Seymour is among those who have criticised the plan.
"I find it deeply troubling that the government appears so determined to reduce the compensation awarded to Thorne Clarke, a young Bahamian man left permanently paralysed by a police bullet," she said.
Ms Seymour, a disability and elderly persons advocate, said the government's legal responsibilities must be balanced with compassion and fairness.
"Mr Clarke has lost his mobility for life, and no amount of money can restore what he has lost," she said. "The compensation awarded may not even be sufficient to meet his medical and personal care needs over his lifetime.
"Whatever the legal arguments surrounding National Insurance benefits, we must be careful about the precedent we set in treating assistance provided to vulnerable citizens as something to be recovered when their circumstances change.
"We do not expect someone who received Social Services assistance during difficult times to repay that support simply because they eventually become financially independent. Government assistance should help people move forward, not become a burden they carry into the future."
Ms Seymour also questioned the government's priorities, saying it did not appear to show the same urgency in pursuing millions of dollars owed to the public treasury by businesses and influential individuals.
Members of the public have also challenged Mr Munroe's position on social media, with many arguing that Mr Clarke should receive both the benefits he contributed towards and compensation for his injuries.
The most popular comment under The Tribune's Facebook post on the matter, liked more than 100 times, asked: "Why not deduct it from the officer that shot him?"
"Will the Police Force be paying the employers portion?" another commenter asked.
Another commenter took direct aim at the Attorney General. "I think this man has truly lost his mind," the commenter wrote.
Others compared Mr Clarke's treatment with the considerably greater settlements paid to former Progressive Liberal Party Cabinet minister Shane Gibson and former senator Frank Smith.
"Shane Gibson and Frank Smith got their compensation so what's the problem here? Animal Farm 2.0," one commenter wrote.
Both men sued the government for malicious prosecution after being acquitted of corruption-related charges, and both reached settlements with the Davis administration. Mr Gibson's lawyer has said his 2022 settlement was $2.5m. The amount paid to Mr Smith has not been disclosed.
Mr Clarke was 22 when he was shot by police near Wilson Tract on February 13, 2016. The bullet severed his spinal cord, leaving him permanently paralysed from the chest down.
Assistant Registrar Jonathan Deal awarded him $941,893.91 in damages in a judgment dated September 21, more than a decade after the shooting. The award included $425,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, $135,000 for loss of earning capacity and $126,546 for future medical expenses.
The state has already paid Mr Clarke $80,000, leaving $861,893.91 outstanding before interest and costs.
Mr Clarke has said he does not believe the award will cover his lifetime medical and personal care needs, which include medical supplies, wheelchairs, pressure-relief equipment, accessible transport and modifications to his home. His mother gave up her daycare business to care for him after the shooting.
He filed his claim against the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General in 2018. Judgment was entered against them in September 2019 after they failed to file a defence.
Police said Mr Clarke tried to drive at an officer, who opened fire fearing he would be struck. Mr Clarke denied this. The competing accounts were never tested at a civil trial.