Defence witnesses’ character claims put to test

While Perceval Singh was labelled a charitable and God-fearing man by one of two defence character witnesses, under cross-examination, the witness was unable to pinpoint any charity the former chairman of Petrojam was involved with or church he attended.

Singh is one of two former executives of the oil refinery who are before the court facing fraud-related offences.

Singh is accused of claiming reimbursement for unattended overseas trips and meetings for the company, amounting to more than US$73,000.

Former General Manager Floyd Grindley is charged with aiding and abetting Singh.

The matter, which has been before the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court since 2019, is ongoing because on Wednesday, parish judge Maxine Ennis ruled that the men have a case to answer following an unsuccessful no-case submission by their attorneys.

Senior attorney Bert Samuels represents Singh, and KD Knight, King’s Counsel (KC), represents Grindley.

On Thursday morning, a character witness, who claimed to have known Singh for 14 years, took to the stand, where his credibility was tested.

He told the court: “I’ve known him to be a research scientist … upstanding citizen. I know for a fact that as a member of the board of directors of PCJ, he refused to accept the board fees and other associated payments and directed that it be given to a charity.”

STANDING AS SURETY

He told the court that he also was standing as surety for the accused and id not believe the charges being laid against Singh because “that is not the gentleman” known to him.

The witness was then cross-examined by lead prosecutor Caroline Haye, KC, who asked whether he knew the names of any charity or individual Singh had donated to.

The witness replied no.

She proceeded to suggest names such as the Child Protection and Family Services Agency and Ewarton Primary School, questioning if those were the charity entities, based on transactions from bank accounts, which were in evidence, that Singh was charitable to.

She asked the witness if he was aware of Singh donating to them.

He replied, “No”.

Haye proceeded to ask him whether he knew the name of the church Singh attended.

The witness responded, “No, I don’t … but we always had biblical discussions”.

Parish Court Judge Maxine Ellis later asked him how he knew for a fact that Singh had directed that donations be given to charity.

He replied, “I had a discussion with him surrounding the matter.”

Meanwhile, the other witness testified that both he and Singh attended a two-day board meeting in South Florida, December 7-8, 2017.

He, too, said he knew Singh for 14 years.

With the permission of the court, he was handed a copy of the minutes from those board meetings that contained the signature of Singh.

The witness verified the document, which was later tendered into evidence as Exhibit 66, on the request of Samuels.

Grindley gave his unsworn statement yesterday in which he dismissed any misguided notion that he and Singh were friends and he would, therefore, collude with the latter to defraud Petrojam.

The defence also called two witnesses to testify on behalf of Grindley.

In the near 40-minute testimony, Grindley told the court that he pleaded not guilty to the charges and remained steadfast that he was not and still maintained that Singh was not his friend.

FIRST ENCOUNTER

He told the court that the first time he met Singh was when he was being interviewed for the job as general manager.

Grindley said his now co-accused was among the four-member interview panel in October 2016.

He said ,”Your Honour, Dr Singh was not my friend.”

He sought to explain that the reimbursement payments required two signatures from officers at the company.

He said,:”Your Honour, none of the cheques for Dr Singh had my signature. My signature alone could not have resulted in any payment to anyone in the company, including Dr Singh.”

He said, “I have never, not once, collected a cheque for Dr Singh. He was not my friend, your Honour.”

Grindley told the court that as a Seventh-day Adventist and deacon, he aspired to be in alignment with the 10 Commandments, and, in particular, number eight, which states ‘Thou shalt not steal”.

Knight later called the first of two character witnesses to the stand.

The first witness, a Rastafarian, told the court that he did construction for Grindley.

He said Grindley would often recommend him for work. He told the court that he did not believe the charges laid against the accused and described Grindley as a kind and honest church man.

Haye asked the witness if he knew the church Mr Grindley attended.

He replied, “He is a Seventh-day Adventist.”

The second witness, a retired administrator, said she knew Grindley since 1990.

During her almost 10 minutes on the stand, she described him as bright, professional, competent, and a conscientious person with integrity.

The prosecution had no question for the elderly woman.

Both men had their bail extended until Monday, when the trial is expected to enter the closing argument phase.

andre.williams@gleanerjm.com