Pinnock’s defence wants indictment order rejected in ‘stillborn’ fraud case

Calling the prosecution’s case “stillborn,” senior defence attorney Hugh Wildman yesterday urged the court to reject an indictment order against former Education Minister Ruel Reid and others in their multimillion-dollar fraud case unless fresh evidence, unconnected to the Financial Investigations Division (FID), is presented.

Wildman, representing former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Professor Fritz Pinnock, argued during an application opposing the indictment order that the statements and documents relied upon by the Crown were illegally obtained.

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).

He said the evidence was gathered either directly by FID officers or by police acting on the FID’s instructions – actions he claims were outside the scope of the agency’s legal authority.

“This prosecution is stillborn. It has no life,” Wildman submitted in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court before Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell. “You cannot ground a prosecution in those circumstances.”

He cited the FID Act, arguing that the disclosure and use of statements collected during FID investigations breach the statute. According to Wildman, Section 10 of the Act strictly limits who may access or disclose investigative materials, and any breach of that provision is a criminal offence.

“The sum total of our argument is that the statements that the prosecution intends to rely on to ask you for a court order for indictment, those statements are illegal. They are in breach of a statute, which clearly indicates that those statements ought not to be disclosed to anyone,” he submitted.

SEARCH WARRANTS QUESTIONED

Wildman further argued that search warrants used to obtain key documents were also invalid.

He stressed that once the foundation of the investigation is compromised, all resulting evidence becomes tainted, noting that “fruits from a poisoned tree are poison”.

“Nought from nought is nought, so we are left with nothing to ground this case,” he added.

Wildman also submitted that without alternative, independent evidence, the prosecution could not meet the legal threshold to support an indictment under the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act.

Wildman also questioned the legitimacy of the FID’s role in criminal proceedings, stating that the agency was never designed to act as an enforcement body.

He reminded the court of his own involvement in helping to establish the FID regionally and stressed that its legal mandate was limited to investigating financial crimes and making recommendations to the minister of finance, not arresting individuals or initiating charges.

“The FID is a creature of statute and must operate within the four corners of that statute. It has no binary powers. It was never meant to become a second police force.”

He reiterated that any action taken outside of the agency’s statutory limits rendered the resulting prosecution unlawful.

“From the beginning, we’ve said these charges are a nullity. They have no life. They are founded on an illegal act.”

Wildman noted that the bulk of the statements in the case were collected by FID officers or by police acting on FID instruction.

CALL FOR MORE TIME

The prosecution, in the meantime, requested additional time to respond to the defence’s arguments and proposed Monday, which was accepted by the judge.

Burrell indicated that she would rule on the application after both the prosecution and the defence have made their submissions.

She also stated that she would decide on an application for additional time for defence attorneys, following submissions that they were given late disclosure of documents over 1,000 pages long only two weeks before the trial and that despite their best efforts, had not yet perused all the documents.

The defence lawyers also complained about the manner in which the documents were disclosed and the format, with Wildman arguing that the documents should have been provided in physical form instead of electronically.

Attorney Carolyn Chuck, representing Reid’s daughter, Sharelle, submitted during her application that it was virtually impossible for her to adequately represent her client given the short time available to review the thousands of pages of documents disclosed.

In response, the prosecution indicated that disclosure had been ongoing since 2019, when the case began, and that it had tried its best to disclose the documents in a way that would be helpful to the Crown.

Prosecutor Ashtelle Steele, who expressed disappointment at the defence’s position, noted that the Crown had asked for the trial to be postponed to February of next year, but the defence strongly objected.

Reid, along with his wife Sharen and Sharelle, Pinnock, and Jamaica Labour Party Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence, are currently before the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court for trial in relation to an alleged $50-million fraud.

The group faces charges under various laws, including the Corruption Prevention Act, conspiracy to defraud, misconduct in public office at common law, and breaches of the Proceeds of Crime Act.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com