Attorneys representing Jamaican squash player Julian Morrison have filed a formal application requesting that Catherine Minto, Chair of the Independent Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel, recuse herself from the ongoing hearing concerning an alleged anti-doping violation. The application, filed by Dr. Emir Crowne, Mr. Matthew Gayle, and Mr. Sayeed Bernard, on Monday, September 2, argues that Minto’s prior extensive working relationship with Kings Counsel Ian Wilkinson, who is representing the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) in the matter, presents a potential conflict of interest.

The legal team’s concerns are rooted in the principle of impartiality, as outlined in WADA’s International Standard for Results Management. This standard mandates that members of hearing panels must be free from any actual or potential conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and unbiased adjudication process.

According to the standard, “Upon appointment to a hearing panel, each hearing panel member shall sign a declaration that there are no facts or circumstances known to him/her which might call into question their impartiality in the eyes of any of the parties, other than any circumstances disclosed in the declaration…”

Morrison's legal team discovered on August 30, 2024, that Minto had previously served as co-counsel with Wilkinson in several cases, some of which spanned nearly a decade and culminated in an appeal to the Privy Council. Despite the significant duration and nature of this professional relationship, it was not disclosed to Morrison or his representatives at the outset of the hearing. They argue that this omission compromises the perceived impartiality of the Chair and raises questions about the fairness of the proceedings.

Matthew Gayle, one of Morrison’s attorneys, emphasized the seriousness of the situation: “Given that the panel has considered the issue of recusal, substantively for a significant period of time, this ought to have been a matter that was disclosed to the parties so the athlete has no way of knowing but for information in the public domain. This should have been disclosed by the Chair herself and to the parties and give the athlete an opportunity to consider whether or not he wants to raise an objection, and in the circumstances where no disclosure has taken place it does raise a very serious question as to why,” he told Sportsmax.TV.

The application highlights multiple cases, including ones from 2014, 2016, and 2020, where Minto and Wilkinson worked closely together. Morrison’s legal team contends that this omission violates the ethical guidelines that require transparency and impartiality from those presiding over such hearings.

In April, Morrison was provisionally suspended by JADCO after testing positive for trace amounts of the banned anabolic agent Boldenone. Since then, he has been eagerly awaiting the chance to clear his name. His legal team has argued that Morrison unknowingly ingested the substance and is determined to prove his innocence.

The attorneys have requested that Minto either voluntarily recuse herself and be replaced by an alternate who has no recent or extensive professional ties to JADCO's counsel, or that the application for her recusal be decided by other members of the Independent Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel who are free from similar conflicts.

Morrison’s legal team stressed that this application was not made lightly, acknowledging that it could delay the proceedings. However, they assert that the integrity of the hearing and the athlete’s right to a fair trial must take precedence.

The outcome of this recusal application could significantly impact the course of the hearing, as both parties await a decision that will determine the next steps in this high-stakes case. Morrison remains resolute in his fight to prove his innocence and is hopeful that he will be granted a fair opportunity to do so.

The legal battle surrounding Jamaican squash player Julian Morrison has taken a contentious turn as his attorneys, Matthew Gayle and Dr. Emir Crowne of New City Chambers, are at odds with the Independent Anti-Doping Panel (IADP) over its decision to hold the upcoming hearing virtually. The dispute arose after Morrison’s legal team, who had planned to attend the hearing in person, was informed at the last minute that the proceedings set for September 3 and 4, would be conducted via Zoom.

Morrison, who was provisionally suspended by the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) in April after testing positive for trace amounts of the banned anabolic agent Boldenone, has been eagerly awaiting the chance to clear his name. His legal team has argued that Morrison unknowingly ingested the substance and is determined to prove his innocence.

Matthew Gayle expressed his frustration with the IADP’s unilateral decision to conduct the hearing virtually, especially given the substantial expenses incurred by the athlete for his legal team to travel to Jamaica.

“My personal opinion is that the unilateral decision by the Independent Panel to hold this hearing, a substantive hearing by virtual means, made at the 11th hour, and without any consultation with the parties, offends every sense of justice of the matter," Gayle said. "In particular, Dr. Crowne and I indicated that we were in the midst of making travel arrangements some two weeks ago, and this was communicated to the panel."

He continued, “Since then, the athlete has expended significant funds for us to travel to Jamaica in order to represent him in person, only to find out less than a week before we travel that the hearing is to be held by Zoom. This is in the context of there has been very little, if any, movement in bringing this matter to a head since April. It reeks of bureaucratic inefficiency. I just hope that the athlete is able to get a fair hearing. At the end of the day, this athlete has been on provisional suspension for a significant period, and the case is yet to be heard, yet to be proven.”

The situation escalated further when Sportsmax.TV obtained copies of the correspondence between Morrison’s representatives and Christine Minto, chairperson of the IADP. In the emails, Morrison’s legal team expressed their surprise and disappointment at the decision to hold the hearing virtually, especially after making it clear on multiple occasions that they intended to be present in Jamaica for the hearing.

“We are very surprised to learn that the choice of online forum for the hearing is on account of the athlete's representatives living/working out of the country. The experts appearing virtually is also a surprising rationale, since by that account there would rarely be an in-person hearing," the correspondence read.

The attorneys emphasized that their plans to attend in person had been communicated clearly, both verbally and in writing, yet the decision to go virtual was made without their input.

 In response, Minto defended the Panel’s decision, stating that the hearing had been conducted virtually from the start and that it should not have been unexpected that it would continue in the same manner. She pointed out that the athlete’s representatives did not specifically request an in-person hearing early enough and suggested that their decision to book accommodations in Jamaica was based on their preference to be in the same room as their client during the virtual hearing.

“This matter has been conducted virtually since the commencement of the hearing process. We have had at least four hearing dates so far, virtually. Therefore, it ought not to have taken anyone by surprise that the hearing will be continuing and concluding virtually," Minto explained.

She added, "A specific application ought to have been made for an in-person hearing by the athlete. Perhaps at the same time, as the application for a public hearing. It was certainly neither clear to us nor unequivocal that the athlete desired an in-person hearing. Further, the importance of the athlete’s evidence is not diminished or undermined if it is taken virtually.”

As the dispute over the hearing format continues, the focus remains on ensuring that Julian Morrison receives a fair trial and that the case, which has been pending for several months, reaches a timely conclusion.