24th January 2022
10th December Highland Radio Broadcast
On the final show of 2021 the storming of Capitol Hill on the 6th of January was again highlighted in the context of former chief of staff Mark Meadow’s refusal to appear before the select committee investigating the circumstances surrounding the riot which resulted in the deaths of 5 people and in particular the role, if any, of the ex-president Donald Trump therein. Our contributor Seamus Gunn highlighted that it should not be forgotten that 5 people lost their lives as a result and that a further 4 first responders took their own lives in the months that followed. He said that there had been a decision by a federal Judge in Colombia last month in favor of the select committee gaining access to records, documents and memos of the ex-president leading up to the 6th of January 2021 which has now been appealed to the US Court of Appeal for the District Circuit of Colombia. Greg Hughes thought that it was politics that was playing out and he wondered whether anything would come of it. Seamus Gunn was of the view that while politics did play a role, the investigation had to take its course and evidence; documents, memos, records, texts, emails, etc. would have to be accessed by the select committee. He said that while the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi was a Democrat, it was interesting the Vice Chair Liz Cheney is a Republican. He thought that this story was going to gain traction in the New Year as the ex-president would circle the wagons, he was urging associates not to cooperate, while the select committee were for proceeding and that they would likely instigate a criminal contempt charge against Mark Meadows for his refusal to cooperate and attend for the purpose of giving a deposition.
One of the most varied Q&A of the year followed, listen to the full interview below.
24th January 2022
12th November Highland Radio Broadcast
Today’s show began with the very interesting case of an American couple suing a fertility clinic in respect of the implantation of a stranger’s embryo which resulted in 2 couples carrying each other’s embryo for the term. Seamus Gunn explained the proceedings now being taken, he said he believed that negligence could be proven and was established by the follow up investigation, but he had some reservations about the level of damages such an action would attract. He said that the couple were seeking damages under a number of headings which included emotional damages and property damages. He said that one could take the view that once the position was remedied and the parents had now the correct baby, that they could in time look back on it positively in that the bonding that was established for the first number of months in respect of another person’s baby, may last the test of time. He compared the situation to a fertility clinic providing both sperm and egg to strangers to be carried for a full term by the mother after implantation and that the child was no less cherished. He thought that there would be some form of monetary compensation as costs could have been incurred as a result of the mistake, initially by way of custody applications and likely Court Orders which could be payable by the clinic. He said that he understood that it had arisen as a result of one doctor dealing with 2 clinics to which he was associated. He made the point in relation to damages that if he was defending the case, he would be highlighting what is reported, that Daphna Cardinale was uneasy from the outset, immediately after the birth as she did not recognise the baby and thought that her complexion was darker. Our contributor said that he thought that this was the time to call for a DNA test to establish the position and the mistake could have then been addressed. Greg Hughes thought that it was a difficult situation for the mum and said that he was not sure how he would react. SG explained the claim for emotional damages, in similar terms to post-traumatic stress disorder in this jurisdiction and the claims that arise under this heading. He was of the view that while the couple were entitled to take the claim, that it may be better settled out of court as it was basically an assessment case, while he had some reservations as to the extent of the damages the Court would award.
Listen to the Q&A that followed online.