Reid matter set for plea and management case hearing January
Published:Tuesday | December 17, 2024 | 12:10 AM
Former Education Minister Ruel Reid and former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Professor Fritz Pinnock and their three co-accused are to return to the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court on January 30 for a plea and case management hearing.
The date was scheduled on Friday when the accused appeared in court and had their bail extended.
Reid, his wife Sharen, their daughter Sharelle, Pinnock, and Jamaica Labour Party Councillor for 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 Investigations Division (FID) following a probe into nearly $50 million, which was allegedly diverted from the CMU.
Meanwhile, Reid and Pinnocks’ appeal of the Full Court’s ruling in which they 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 is set for hearing next February.
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 potential conflict of interest.
The judge’s ruling was in response to a preliminary objection raised by Reid and Pinnock. They argued that the charges against them should be nullified as the FID, which levelled the charges, had no legal authority 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 claimants had not satisfied the court on a balance of probabilities that the judge was biased.