Defence seeks dismissal of Reid trial, citing fatal flaw

Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell is expected to deliver a ruling today on an application by the defence seeking to have the fraud trial involving former Education Minister Ruel Reid thrown out, citing a critical error in the indictment order.

Reid – along with his wife Sharen, daughter Sharelle, former head of the Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) Professor Fritz Pinnock, and Jamaica Labour Party Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence – is currently facing fraud-related charges before the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court.

However, shortly after the prosecution’s first witness completed testimony yesterday, Pinnock’s attorney, Hugh Wildman, filed a motion to have the trial dismissed.

Wildman argued that the indictment order – on which the case is based – contains information only pertaining to Pinnock and Reid despite five individuals being on trial.

According to Wildman, this discrepancy renders the trial invalid for the remaining three accused.

“The trial as it stands is a nullity as it relates to the other three accused,” he told the court. “This cannot be cured because the trial has commenced on an order that does not exist.”

He further described the issue as a fundamental legal flaw that cannot be corrected within the current proceedings and urged the court to refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

“How can we proceed with this trial? This trial has to come to an end,” Wildman argued.

The application followed testimony from the prosecution’s first witness – a minister of religion and employee at Jamaica College – who identified a deceased individual believed to be Reid’s driver. The witness confirmed that the man, his brother, had died on November 28, 2020, and was buried on December 19 that year. He also authenticated a photocopy of the funeral programme, which included a photograph of the deceased, and confirmed that he had provided it to the police and signed the back – an action he verified in court before the document was admitted into evidence.

Following Wildman’s motion, other defence attorneys joined in. Reid’s lawyer, Anthony Armstrong, supported the application, describing the indictment as irregular.

“The information listed at the back does not contain any charges other than the one listed at the front,” he noted.

Lead prosecutor Ashtelle Steele rejected the defence’s argument, insisting that all five accused are properly before the court. She argued that while the indictment is signed and endorsed on only one of the “number one” information documents, it references 15 such documents covering all defendants.

Steele emphasised that the trial is a joint one and dismissed the notion that the accused are being tried separately. She explained that the court had, after due inquiry, made an order for the indictment to be signed on a single “number one” information, which is a legal document detailing the accused, the charges, and the relevant laws.

Importantly, she noted that the order references 15 “number one” information entries relating to all the accused.

The five accused were arrested and charged in 2019. They are accused of conspiring to defraud the Ministry of Education and the CMU of more than $25 million.

Lead prosecutor Ashtelle Steele disagreed, rejecting the defence’s position that the trial was a nullity.

She maintained that all three women are included by virtue of references in the indictment.

She explained that the court, after making the necessary inquiries, made an order for the indictment to be signed and endorsed on one of the “number one” information documents rather than on all of them.

Importantly, she noted that the order references 15 “number one” information entries relating to all the accused.

Number-one information is a document containing the name of the accused person, particulars of the offence, and the law that is breached when an accused is first brought before the court.

The five were arrested and charged in 2019. They are accused of conspiring to defraud the Ministry of Education and the CMU of more than $25 million.

They face several charges, including conspiracy to defraud, corruption, acquiring and handling criminal property, and participating in an arrangement to retain criminal property.