CMU paid $720,000 to Reid’s driver for student meals, court hears

Four invoices with sums totalling $720,000 were paid out by the Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) to former Education Minister Ruel Reid’s driver for providing meals for students.

Reid, his wife Sharen, their daughter Sharelle, former CMU head Professor Fritz Pinnock, and Jamaica Labour Party Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence are currently before the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court for their alleged involvement in a scheme to defraud both the Ministry of Education and the CMU of more than $25 million.

Two of the invoices were each for $330,000, and the other two for $30,000, covering the period from January to March 2018.

The information was disclosed by a detective sergeant of the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency (MOCA), who had taken a statement from the now-deceased witness in April 2019.

A minister of religion and administrator at Jamaica College had previously identified the deceased man as his brother. He told the court that the man had worked as a watchman at the school and also served as Reid’s driver. He died of cancer in November 2020.

The detective told the court that in March 2019, she was instructed by her superior to assist the Financial Investigations Division (FID), which was probing the matter. The following month, she visited the FID offices and later accompanied a detective inspector to the driver’s home in Vineyard Town, St Andrew.

After speaking with the man, she invited him to visit the FID office, and he complied. There, he was interviewed and shown the invoices. He gave a statement, which he signed.

The detective sergeant also testified that on September 24 of this year, she was visited by the same detective inspector, who showed her a copy of the front page of a funeral programme with the driver’s photo. She said she remembered him distinctly, noting that he had a big nose and a memorable face.

REQUEST TO MAKE SUBMISSION

While the witness was giving her evidence, Pinnock’s attorney, Hugh Wildman, who had previously been absent, entered the courtroom and immediately requested to make a submission.

“Why didn’t your junior make the submission?” asked Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell.

“You expect my junior to make that submission?” Wildman replied, visibly surprised, arguing that his junior, who has been practising law for under a year, would not have been able to make the points he intended to raise.

“Isn’t he a lawyer? Or is he just here to take notes?” the judge asked.

Wildman insisted on making his submission, but the judge noted that the witness was already testifying.

“The evidence must be struck from the record,” Wildman demanded.

“There’s no such thing as striking a witness’ evidence from the record,” the judge replied, asking Wildman to cite legislation to support his claim.

Still, Wildman insisted that the evidence was hearsay and inadmissible. The judge reminded him that there would be a proper point in the proceedings to raise such concerns. However, Wildman persisted.

The prosecutor then asked the witness if she would be able to identify the deceased man in a photograph. Wildman again objected, arguing that the testimony regarding the driver was hearsay and inadmissible.

“Mr [name withheld] is not before the court,” he said.

Burrell countered by asking whether Wildman had received a notice under Section 31D of the Evidence Act and questioned how the detective’s statement collection was inadmissible.

“She is giving evidence that was done in the absence of the accused,” Wildman responded.

“I don’t have time for submissions that have no basis in law,” the judge shot back.

SUPPORT TO CLAIMS

Wildman then cited case law to support his claim, but the judge told him she would need to see copies of the cases. Wildman, however, said he would need to go and retrieve them from his office.

The judge further asked him if he had read the witness’ testimony. Wildman said his junior had informed him of a conversation between the witness and the deceased. However, the judge noted that her own records reflected no such conversation in the testimony.

Wildman indicated that he was referring to evidence about the invoices while arguing that it should not have been admitted because the accused were not present. Again, the judge denied his objection.

Wildman then raised a new point, claiming that the witness’ evidence was inadmissible because she was acting in concert with the FID. The judge reiterated that there was an appropriate time for submissions.

The witness resumed her testimony, stating that she had signed the photocopy of the funeral programme’s front page and identified the document before it was entered into evidence.

The trial continues today.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com