Reid fraud trial pushed back again

The absence of several defence attorneys in the fraud trial involving former Education Minister Ruel Reid and his co-accused forced an adjournment of the matter in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court yesterday.

The case was scheduled to resume with the cross-examination of a senior Ministry of Finance official by attorney Hugh Wildman.

However, when the matter was called up, none of the defence lawyers were present, prompting the court to briefly stand down to allow attempts to contact the attorneys.

Nearly an hour later, attorney Carolyn Chuck arrived and told the court she had spent about 45 minutes trying to secure parking.

She then informed the court that her colleagues, Anthony Armstrong, Linda Wright and Wildman, were engaged in an ongoing murder trial in the Supreme Court of Jamaica and would not be present.

The court also heard that attorney Shannon Clarke had two matters, including a trial in the High Court, while Oswest Senior-Smith was also engaged in two matters.

GRAVE INCONVENIENCE

Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell, who described the situation as a “grave inconvenience”, noted that she had expected the lawyers to attend, since the matter had been specifically scheduled for the witness to complete his testimony under cross-examination.

She further noted that the date had been fixed after she was informed earlier in March that the trial in the Home Circuit Court would have been adjourned on March 11 to accommodate a juror with a personal issue. The judge said she would have expected that the lawyers would have informed her sister judge that the case would continue, but it appeared that this was not done.

The court heard that although the evidentiary aspect of the trial was adjourned, the trial remains engaged with submissions on points of law.

Burrell ultimately adjourned the matter until April 13 for the attorneys to attend, fix a date for the continuation of the trial, and to hear an application for special measures to allow a witness to testify remotely.

The Home Circuit Court trial, which will break at the end of the Hilary Term, is scheduled to resume on April 13. However, the judge said she would ask her colleague to allow her to have the matter heard on that date.

ACCUSED UNWELL

Meanwhile, one of the accused, former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Professor Fritz Pinnock, was absent when the case was first called. Following the adjournment, he appeared in court, and it was explained that he had been unwell and had been receiving treatment from a doctor.

Reid, his wife Sharen Reid, their daughter Sharelle Reid, Pinnock, and Jamaica Labour Party Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence are currently on trial on fraud-related charges.

Prosecutors allege that the group conspired with others to defraud the Ministry of Education and the CMU of more than $25 million.

On the last court date, the principal director within the Ministry of Finance testified that contractors who do business with the Government, as well as private-sector workers, are not necessarily expected to understand or comply with the Financial Administration and Audit Act.

The witness confirmed that while public-sector employees are typically familiar with the act through training and self-study, private individuals or companies would not necessarily have knowledge of its provisions.

He further explained that the legislation outlines how entities are funded, whether through the Consolidated Fund or through their own revenue-generating activities.

When asked whether a ministry can access funds from agencies under its jurisdiction, the witness said the Appropriation Act specifies the approved funding sources for each ministry in a given financial year.

The witness also testified that he had not reviewed statements attributed to several individuals connected to the case, including Brown Lawrence, nor had he been asked to provide an expert opinion on their contents.

On that same court date, Burrell also placed on record her dissatisfaction with Wildman’s conduct, noting that he had not properly communicated with the court about his intention not to attend. The court was only informed after one of his colleagues called him to find out whether he would be present. The judge had warned that the court would not tolerate further delays.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com