Following yet another legal blow, former Education Minister Ruel Reid and former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Fritz Pinnock are set to enter a new phase in their legal battle. The men are planning to appeal yesterday’s ruling that there was no bias in the chief parish court judge’s ruling that they have a case to answer in a multimillion-dollar fraud matter.
The applicants’ lawyer, Hugh Wildman, said the notice of appeal will be filed very shortly.
Reid and Pinnock had taken issue with Chief Parish Judge Chester Crooks’ February 2021 ruling in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court, after he recused himself from the trial stating that there might be a possible case of conflict of interest.
It was later revealed that the judge’s conflict of interest related to the fact that Reid was previously known to him, as he was the headboy when Crooks attended Munro College.
The two applicants, who were contending that Crooks was conflicted when he made the ruling, consequently sought a judicial review for the parish judge ruling to be quashed on the basis that there was a bias in the judge’s decision.
They also sought a declaration for Crooks’ decision to be ruled unlawful, null and void and of no effect.
But the Full Court panel of justices Cresencia Brown Beckford, Lisa Palmer Hamilton and Trecia Hutchinson Shelly refused their application.
Brown, in handing down the ruling, said the claimant had not established “on a balance of probability that the inferior court was biased”.
She also explained that it must have been a case where the applicants waived their rights to full disclosure as they never raised any objection or sought further information when Crooks mentioned before starting the application that there could be a possible conflict of interest.
Brown also asserted that the court did not believe that Crooks would have brought a partial mind to the hearing because of a “scant acquaintance”.
‘Strange’ ruling
Reacting to the decision, a clearly disappointed Wildman described the ruling as “rather strange on aspects of the law”.
“Once there was an admission that there was not full disclosure to the parties, naturally there could be no waiver to the parties as waiver presupposes that you have made full disclosure,” he said.
Additionally, Wildman said that “the issue is not whether the parties knew each other, the issue is that he went on to do the case and, having completed the case, he said he was conflicted.
“Once you get into that, it is operating on his mind and it is his mind that is important, it’s not the defendant’s mind, so if he felt that he was conflicted before and while he was hearing the case, then he ought not have done the case.
In response to the court’s decision that no objections were raised, Wildman said that, at the time of the application, he only represented Pinnock and had no issue with the judge.
Further to that, he said he didn’t ask for further details as he was of the view that the conflict may have been in relation to the other accused persons in the matter.
Meanwhile, Brown highlighted that there was no evidence that Crooks and Reid had any specific interaction or association when they were in school many years ago.
Neither was there evidence of a personal or acrimonious relationship.
At the same time, the judges found that there was a failure on Crooks’ part in not providing full disclosure.
But Brown said Crooks, by nature of his training, would have disabused his mind of any irrelevant personal beliefs or predisposition and set aside any unconscious bias.
In the meantime, the judges lifted the stay of proceedings on the criminal aspect in the parish court, while ordering that every effort should be made for the matter to be set for the earliest trial date.
She also ordered that no further applications by the claimants should be heard if the costs awarded against them in previous applications have not been taxed and settled.
Crooks’ ruling was in response to a preliminary objection raised by Reid and Pinnock on the basis that the charges against them should be nullified as the Financial Investigations Division (FID), which levelled the charges, had no authority in law to arrest or charge them.
Reid’s wife, Sharen; their daughter, Sharelle; and Kim Brown Lawrence, the Jamaica Labour Party councillor for the Brown’s Town division, were also charged in the matter involving nearly $50 million, which was allegedly diverted from the CMU.
The accused, including Reid and Pinnock, are to return to the parish court on September 5, when the fraud matter will be mentioned.
Attorney-at-law Luke Foote also appeared for the claimants.
Lisa White and Faith Hall, from the Attorney General’s Department, represented Crooks.
Richard Small, Anne Williams and Sean Steadman represent the FID, which appeared as an interested party in the matter.
