Defence counsel claim ‘prosecutorial misconduct’ in Petrojam fraud case

The no-case submission by the defence team representing former Petrojam General Manager Floyd Grindley and former Chairman Dr Perceval Singh was part heard yesterday with the prosecution in the line of fire, heavily criticised as being disingenuous.

Senior attorney Bert Samuels, who represents Singh, during his submission yesterday in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court relied on two pieces of evidence – Exhibit 65 and Exhibit 17.

The former has to do with dates of meetings for which the accused was alleged to have been falsely reimbursed, and the latter an email trail involving several persons, some of whom were witnesses during the trial.

The men are being tried on fraud charges stemming from alleged fraudulent claims for overseas travel allowances amounting to more than US$70,000 (J$10,801,609.01).

Both Grindley and Singh have maintained their innocence and have pleaded not guilty.

Singh is alleged to have submitted claims between November 2016 and July 2018 for overseas travel he did not make, while allegedly being aided and abetted by Grindley.

Samuels told the court yesterday that a meeting, on which the prosecution built its case and used to label his client a fraudster, was scheduled for September 8, 2017 but did not take place.

Samuels said the meeting was rescheduled two weeks later, September 22, 2017.

“The evidence reveals that there was no board meeting on September 8, 2017… it was a fictitious meeting being referred to that Mr Singh was reimbursed… the defence agrees that no meeting of the board was held on the 8th of September. Whilst it is a factual situation, the evidence is also there that this meeting of 8th of September 2017 was planned to be held, however it was not held and was rescheduled to the 22nd of September, that’s 14 days after, as evidence in the now agreed Exhibit 65, the board meeting held at the Rose Hall Montego Bay,” said Samuels, arguing the point was very important.

Samuels invited the court to find that these conclusions by the prosecution are “grossly erroneous”, in light of Exhibit 65, with respect to the minutes of Petrojam.

“Further, this amounts, respectfully, to prosecutorial misconduct in that the information was at all material time in control of the prosecution witnesses,” Samuels, arguing it fully explains the reason emails were sent.

Samuels said, to date, the prosecution fails to withdraw that adverse comment.

Relying on a fairness-in-law argument, Samuels said the prosecution withheld relevant material.

“Matters which are likely to be of importance to the defence and are under the control of or in the possession of the prosecution ought to be disclosed,” Samuels said.

False narrative

He did not let up that the prosecution knew that the meeting was rescheduled.

“As a minister of justice, the prosecution ought not to have gone further to mislead this honourable court that Singh’s conduct was fraudulent. A very serious allegation particularly … to represent a false narrative that he simply created a meeting of the 8th of September … there is clear and open evidence which exonerates him. It’s untenable that the prosecution is now telling the court that the material was asked for by the defence and given to the defence …,” Samuels said.

He also described the evidence as a change agent that the court needs to look at.

The prosecution had previously asserted that for the September board meetings in question, Singh was reimbursed for both but only attended one.

Parish Court Judge Maxine Ellis is presiding over the trial.

The accused men remain on bail until tomorrow, when the matter is expected to continue.

andre.williams@gleanerjm.com