Judge withholds decision in Reid case
Published:Saturday | December 12, 2020 | 12:14 AMAndre Williams/Staff Reporter
Hugh Wildman, the attorney representing former Education Minister Ruel Reid, Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Fritz Pinnock and their co-accused, told the court yesterday that his clients should walk out the courtroom with their freedom intact.
Reid, his wife Sharen, their daughter Sharelle, Pinnock and Brown’s Town Division Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence are facing corruption charges. The five accused were charged in connection with a major fraud and corruption probe by the Financial Investigations Division (FID) involving transactions at the CMU.
They will know on February 4, 2021, if they have a case to answer.
Yesterday, the decision was expected from Chief Parish Judge Chester Crooks. However, additional submissions were heard from the defence and prosecution.
The arguments largely focused on whether the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) Act and the Privy Council decision thereof are distinguishable from the Financial Investigations Division (FID) Act.
“We say the FID Act is distinguishable from the INDECOM Act for a variety of reasons … ,” said prosecutor Richard Small. “The FID Act specifically recruits police officers, police constables to carry out the function of authorised officers under the FID Act, quite unlike the INDECOM Act, which expressly disqualifies police constables from carrying out any of the commission’s functions or investigation.”
Small said there is no provision on the FID Act that can be pointed to where the act says it has suspended the statutory powers of a constable.
Wildman had argued in October that the FID was an investigative body and does not have legal authority to bring criminal charges or obtain a fiat from the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to prosecute the defendants.
Defence counsel Carolyn Chuck, however, said both the FID Act and the INDECOM Act were quite similar.
“You cannot read into legislation additional powers. If they intended additional powers to be given, they would have specifically included additional powers … . Similarly, the INDECOM Act, it was intentional that INDECOM officers do not have prosecutor powers and this is why it must go through the DPP’s office,” Chuck said yesterday.
“The DPP, respectfully I submit, does not have no choice but to join what has already happened and try to guide it in a way that it can be prosecuted,” Chuck said.
“In all the reading I have done, I have not read anything to support that,” Judge Crooks responded.
Wildman then told the court that he heard so much absurdity from the prosecution and could not address them all.
“If it had no life from the beginning, then the DPP can’t take over something that doesn’t exist … . There is no charge before the court. How can the DPP take over something that doesn’t exist?” Wildman said, pointing out that the counts against his clients were laid in breach of the FID Act.
“I thank both sides for very comprehensive arguments. I came here prepared to rule today, but having heard further submissions from both sides, … I think, on the side of caution, I will give myself time to fully apprise myself before I rule on this matter ... ,” Crooks said.