Second push to have case dropped against Antigua DPP delayed
Published:Friday | January 6, 2023 | 1:48 AMTanesha Mundle/Staff Reporter
A second attempt by the defence team to have fraud charges against Antigua’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Anthony Armstrong dismissed failed to get off the ground on Thursday in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court.
The matter was adjourned to January 26.
Armstrong, a Jamaican lawyer, was arrested in November and slapped with fraud charges in relation to allegations that, in 2004, he sold three properties belonging to the then-incarcerated complainant without his permission.
The lawyer, who is maintaining his innocence, made an application through his defence team for the court to stay the proceedings on the grounds that there was an abuse of process, but Parish Judge Venise Blackstock-Murray dismissed the application last month.
Following the decision, lead defence lawyer Hugh Wildman indicated that he would be making fresh submissions at the commencement of the committal hearing on January 5.
However, when the matter was mentioned on Thursday, the clerk informed the court that the statements on the case bundle were not in chronological order and, as a result, were not committal-proceeding compliant. Additionally, the clerk indicated that two new statements from the complainant and the investigator had not yet been photocopied and disclosed to the defence.
Wildman, in return, registered his displeasure with the prosecution’s state of unreadiness, noting that the adjournment was most unfortunate.
He also described the situation as being “very disturbing”, while emphasising that time was of the essence as his client is a public official in Antigua.
“To have this matter hanging and lagging is not doing justice to him,” he said.
Furthermore, Wildman said the complainant’s new statement amounted to a waste of time.
“In fact, it is a waste of paper,” Wildman contended.
According to him, in the statement, the complainant indicated that another statement given by his co-accused and cousin, Shelly Peart Campbell, was given under duress, but that his opinion was inadmissible.
He charged that the statement was a part of the complainant’s concoction and plan to damage his client’s reputation.
Meanwhile, further during the proceedings, King’s Counsel Jacqueline Samuels Brown raised concern about a report from the investigating officer, alleging that fraud charges were pending against the lawyer in Antigua.
The clerk, after requesting that Armstrong be fingerprinted, informed the judge that she was told by the investigator that Armstrong was convicted. However, after Samuels Brown and the judge questioned the veracity of that, given Armstrong’s position as DPP, the clerk admitted that she had made an error and that the investigator had said he was charged.
But Samuels Brown expressed alarm at the claim, noting that she was very distressed and concerned.
“It gives me great concern about the strength of the investigation,” she said.
Wildman, for his part, described the claim as “very unbelievable”, while questioning how his client could be the subject of charges that nobody knows of.
He consequently urged the investigator to be careful.
In the meantime, both Armstrong’s and Peart Campbell’s bails were extended.
The complainant had reported Armstrong to the General Legal Council and its disciplinary committee had found the accused guilty of professional misconduct for witnessing a document for a client who was not present.
Armstrong, however, is contending that he is not guilty of the charges because the proceeds of the sale were paid over to the father of the complainant, who had been authorised to be an agent while his son was incarcerated in the United States.
Additionally, Wildman submitted that it was Peart Campbell who sold all three apartments.
He also reiterated that a police handwriting expert had found that it was not Armstrong who had signed the transfer documents.
The complainant, however, is contending that he did not authorise anyone to sell his properties. He is also arguing that Armstrong had admitted to selling the properties without his consent and had promised to repay him.