Reid’s defence fights attempt to block witnesses’ names from media publication
Published:Tuesday | October 7, 2025 | 12:09 AMTanesha Mundle/Staff Reporter
The defence team in the multimillion-dollar fraud case involving former Education Minister Ruel Reid and his co-accused has strongly opposed a prosecution request barring the media from publishing the names of witnesses due to security concerns.
Yesterday, ahead of today’s start of the trial, which has been delayed for six years due to various legal challenges, prosecutor Astelle Steele asked Justice Leighton Morris to order members of the media not to publish the names of witnesses, citing security concerns. Morris was stepping in for the presiding judge, Vaughn Facey, who was absent.
However, defence attorney Hugh Wildman quickly objected.
“I have a problem with that. This is not an in-camera trial. I don’t know why the Crown is asking for that,” he said.
When asked by the judge to “punctuate” her request with a basis, Steele explained that it was important to protect the identity of the witnesses, some of whom are very vulnerable. She further indicated that there were certain details she could not disclose.
However, Wildman, supported by other defence lawyers, said the request was unacceptable.
“It is not a Gun Court case; it is not a sexual offence case. This case is an open trial case where any member of the public can come and sit and hear any of the testimony of every witness.
“There is no basis under the Constitution, which is the highest law, which allows for this request to be met. It is against the Constitution of Jamaica. Justice is open justice,” he said.
In response, Justice Morris acknowledged that Wildman was making a valid constitutional argument and noted that legal applications must have a real, not “imaginary”, basis.
“And at this stage in the proceedings for the court to accede to your request, it might cause an unintentional tilting of the matters to security levels that the court really and truly ought not to have its hand in,” he said.
The judge then asked the prosecutor to provide legal authorities to support such a request.
CROWN TO PROCEED
Meanwhile, the defence indicated its intention to make extensive submissions opposing an order for indictment in the case.
An indictment is a formal document detailing the charges an accused person will face at trial and is typically preferred by the director of public prosecutions (DPP).
Steele, however, indicated that the Crown would proceed with its opening address and the formal indictment, and, depending on how long the preliminary arguments were planned to last, would call one witness in the afternoon.
Reid, along with his wife, Sharen, and daughter, Sharelle, was arrested and charged in 2019. Also charged are Jamaica Labour Party Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence and former Caribbean Maritime University President, Professor Fritz Pinnock.
After leaving court, Reid attempted to avoid being photographed and shouted “third term”, while flashing the finger symbol of the ruling Jamaica Labour Party. He also used his jacket to shield his face.
Reid and his co-accused are implicated in an alleged scheme that reportedly siphoned more than $50 million from a government-run programme intended to support at-risk youth.
They face a range of charges, including breaches of the Corruption Prevention Act, conspiracy to defraud, misconduct in public office at common law, and violations of the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Joining Steele from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is Nickeisha Young Shand. Attorney Shawn Steadman is also prosecuting the matter on a fiat.
On the defence side, Ruel Reid is being represented by attorneys Linda Wright and Anthony Armstrong, while Shannon Clarke appears for his wife, Sharen. Carolyn Chuck is representing their daughter, Sharelle.
Attorney Oswest Senior-Smith is appearing for Kim Brown Lawrence, while Hugh Wildman and Shamar Bryan are representing Pinnock.
Since the accused were arrested, both Pinnock and Reid have brought several legal challenges, including a failed attempt to quash a ruling by Chief Parish Court Judge Chester Crooks that they have a case to answer. They had argued that Crooks should not have presided over the matter due to a perceived conflict of interest, as he had once attended Munro College while Ruel Reid was head boy.
Although the judge later recused himself, the court found no evidence of bias. An appeal of that decision was subsequently thrown out by the Court of Appeal in March.