July 28 ruling on whether Reid, Pinnock have case to answer
Published:Tuesday | June 13, 2023 | 12:58 AMTanesha Mundle/Staff Reporter
The Full Court is to deliver its ruling on July 28, following a judicial review of Parish Judge Chester Crooks’ decision that former Education Minister Ruel Reid, former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Fritz Pinnock, and their co-accused have a case to answer in the multimillion-dollar fraud matter.
The pivotal ruling will decide the fate or the next step for the case, which is before the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court, awaiting trial
Reid’s wife, Sharen; their daughter, Sharelle; Pinnock; and Jamaica Labour Party Councillor for the Brown’s Town division Kim Brown Lawrence were also charged in the matter involving nearly $50 million, which was allegedly diverted from the Ministry of Education and the CMU.
The accused appeared in the parish court yesterday and had their bail extended after a new mention date was scheduled for September 5.
Crooks ruled in February 2021 that the accused all have a case to answer.
After handing down the ruling and ordering that the matter proceed to trial, he recused himself, stating that there was a possible conflict of interest as one of the accused was known to him personally
But both Reid and Pinnock sought the high court’s intervention to review Crooks’ ruling, claiming that he should not have ruled in the matter as he had admitted to a conflict of interest. They want the court to quash his ruling.
It was later revealed that the supposed conflict of interest was in relation to Crooks’ attendance at Munro College while Reid was head boy.
Crooks’ ruling was in response to a preliminary objection raised by Reid and Pinnock on the basis that the charges against them should be nullified as the Financial Investigations Division (FID), which levelled the charges, had no authority in law to arrest or charge them.
The matter first went to judicial review and was heard before a single judge in February of this year, but another hearing was reordered after the court came to the realisation that the matter should have been heard before a three-judge panel.
The matter was subsequently heard on May 7 and 8.
The lawyer for the Attorney General’s Department, in the first judicial review hearing, had urged the judge to strike out the claimants’ case, arguing that it was purely an academic exercise.
The lawyer contended that the appropriate recourse would have been for the applicant to appeal Crooks’ ruling. Further to that, the counsel said the applicants did not state what the conflict of interest was or how it had prejudiced their case.
But attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, who is representing both claimants, maintained that the judge made an error when he embarked on the ruling with the knowledge that he had a conflict of interest.
He added that the judges’ disclosure had evidence of an apparent bias”.
The accused are facing a range of offences, including breaches of the Corruption Prevention Act, conspiracy to defraud, misconduct in a public office at common law, and breaches of the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Investigators have alleged that nearly $50 million of public funds was diverted to the personal use of Reid and Pinnock through several schemes, including one that mirrors the Career Advancement Programme – Youth Employment Solutions programme.