Reid, Pinnock back in court October 13

Former Education Minister Ruel Reid and former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Fritz Pinnock, along with their three co-accused, are to return to the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court on October 13.

The mention date was scheduled yesterday when the accused appeared in court and had their bails extended.

The two men, along with Reid’s wife Sharen, their daughter Sharelle, and Jamaica Labour Party Councillor for the Brown’s Town division Kim Brown, have been charged with 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.

The accused were charged by the Financial Investigation Division (FID) following an investigation into nearly $50 million which was allegedly diverted from the CMU.

Yesterday, when the matter was called up in court, the prosecutor informed that the case file is near completion and that it is preparing to set a date for a plea and case management hearing.

However, senior attorney-at-law Oswest Senior-Smith, who was recently retained by Brown, requested disclosure and asked that the plea and case management hearing be deferred until he has received the material.

Meanwhile, Reid’s and Pinnock’s lawyer, Hugh Wildman, indicated that he is in the process of appealing the recent Full Court’s ruling in which his clients lost their battle to quash Chief Parish Court Judge Chester Crooks’ ruling that they have a case to answer in the multimillion-dollar fraud matter.

Wildman argued that the matter was still under appeal but the prosecution submitted that the matter must proceed as the court had lifted the stay.

Reid and Pinnock had sought a judicial review of Crooks’ February 2021 decision, claiming that the judge should not have ruled in the matter, as he had admitted to a conflict of interest.

The judge’s 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 FID, which levelled the charges, had no authority in law to arrest or charge them.

However, the men took issue with the decision after Crooks declared that he was recusing himself from the trial because of a perceived conflict of interest, and sought a judicial review.

It was later revealed that the conflict was in relation to the judge’s attendance at Munro College while Reid was head boy.

But Justice Cresencia Brown Beckford, in handing down the ruling in July, said the non-disclosure of the nature of the judge’s knowledge of Reid was of no consequence.

She also found that the claimants had not satisfied the court on a balance of probabilities that the judge was biased.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com