Judge slaps down Wildman’s appeal for pause of Reid, Pinnock fraud trial

Defence lawyer Hugh Wildman yesterday urged Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrel to voluntarily pause the multimillion-dollar fraud trial involving former Education Minister Ruel Reid and others in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court.

Wildman made the request after announcing that he had filed, on Tuesday in the Supreme Court, a judicial review of the judge’s decision to dismiss his application for the case against Reid and his four co-accused to be thrown out due to what he described as a critical error in the indictment.

The attorney, who represents former President of the Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) Professor Fritz Pinnock, had urged the judge to “voluntarily stay” the proceedings and allow the matter to be resolved.

Wildman also indicated that he would be seeking a stay from the High Court as soon as he gets a date.

However, the judge told him, “[When] a court of superior jurisdiction tells me to discontinue, I [will] stop.”

The lawyer, however, persisted, “If we are notified ... .”

But the judge interrupted him, saying, “Sufficient to the day.”

She further stated, “The proper procedure is that I continue unfettered.”

Wildman had argued that the indictment order – which authorises the commencement of the matter – contains information only relating to Pinnock and Reid, despite five individuals being on trial.

He said the indictment did not mention Reid’s wife, Sharen; their daughter, Sharelle; and Jamaica Labour Party Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence, who are also charged in connection with an arrangement to defraud CMU and the Ministry of Education of over $25 million.

According to Wildman, this discrepancy renders the trial invalid for the remaining three accused and should not be allowed to continue. He also contended that the issue was incurable and required the intervention of the Supreme Court.

STILL OBJECTING

Meanwhile, during yesterday’s proceedings, Wildman continued his objection from the previous day, when he challenged the evidence of a detective sergeant from the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency about four invoices she had shown to a driver while collecting a statement from him in April 2019.

The witness said she showed him four invoices from CMU, which were in his name. According to her, two of the sums were for $330,000 and the other two for $30,000 each. Written on each invoice was “for the provision of meals for students”.

The police witness is one of three called by the prosecution so far, as part of its application under Section 31D of the Evidence Act, to have the driver’s statement admitted as evidence.

Reiterating his argument, Wildman stressed that the requirements under the act cannot be proven by hearsay evidence, citing two cases.

“A critical portion of this witness evidence infringes on the hearsay rule,” he said.

According to him, “The witness gave purported evidence and the newspapers have it all over the place. They ran with sensationalism.”

The judge, however, told him that she was focused on the evidence in the case and disagreed with his argument, before instructing him to move on.

Wildman further submitted that the photocopy image of the driver, which the detective sergeant had collected and had signed, should not be allowed.

CRIMINAL OFFENCE

Arguing that she had collaborated with an inspector from the Financial Investigations Division (FID), Wildman said the image came from a source which breaches Section 10 of the FID Act, noting that the act requires absolute confidentiality when an authorised agent obtains information. He said such information cannot be shared with a third party and that any such disclosure amounts to a criminal offence.

Responding on the Crown’s behalf, prosecutor Nickeisha Young Shand said Wildman’s submission was premature, as the witness had not completed her evidence.

She explained that the Crown, in pursuance of its application, had brought witnesses to support the assertion that the driver had died. However, she said the detective was not called to prove that the driver had died but rather, to establish that the photo image she collected was that of the driver.

The prosecutor further argued that although the evidence being elicited from the sergeant was not hearsay, hearsay would be admissible in the context of this case, as the prosecution is seeking to have admitted a statement from a witness who has died.

Lead prosecutor Ashtelle Stelle also argued that nothing in the act restricts the authority conferred on authorised agents by the police force and court orders.

The Crown will continue its response on Monday when the trial resumes.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com