Supreme Court rejects bid by Ruel Reid, Fritz Pinnock and co-accused to challenge fraud case indictment

The Supreme Court has refused applications from lawyers representing former education minister Ruel Reid, former head of the Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) Professor Fritz Pinnock, and their co-accused to challenge the indictment in their fraud case and to take their grievance to the Judicial Review Court.

The court also rejected an application to pause the fraud case, which is before the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court.

Pinnock, Reid, his wife Sharen, their daughter Sharelle, and Jamaica Labour Party councillor Kim Brown Lawrence are accused of defrauding CMU and the Ministry of Education of more than $25 million.

Their lawyers had argued before the parish court, among other things, that there was a critical error in the indictment.

It was argued that the indictment order—which authorises the commencement of the matter—contained information relating only to Pinnock and Reid, and not the other three accused.

The defence contended that this rendered the trial invalid against Sharen and Sharelle Reid, as well as Brown Lawrence.

The lawyers took the matter to the Supreme Court after Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell dismissed the arguments, ruling that the three women were covered by the indictment order and that the trial should proceed.

The Crown argued that all five accused were properly before the court.

The defence disagreed and sought a stay of the proceedings and leave to apply for judicial review.

Senior Parish Judge Burrell and the Clerk of the Courts were listed as respondents, with the Financial Investigations Division named as an interested party.

Ruel Reid, his wife, their daughter, and Pinnock were represented by attorneys Hugh Wildman, Carolyn Chuck, Shannon Clarke, and Shemar Bryan. No lawyer was listed in the filing for Brown Lawrence, who was an applicant in the case.

After hearing submissions, the Supreme Court rejected the applications.

Among other things, the court ruled that the applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable ground for judicial review with a realistic prospect of success.

It further ruled that the parish judge acted in accordance with sections 272 and 273 of the Judicature (Parish Courts) Act prior to the commencement of the criminal trial.

“It cannot be tenably argued that the learned Senior Judge of the Parish Court erred in law when she signed the order for indictment, which was endorsed on an information on the face of which only two of the four applicants are named as accused persons. It cannot be tenably argued that only the first and second applicants are properly before the learned Senior Judge of the Parish Court in the criminal trial in the court below. It cannot be tenably argued that the learned Senior Judge of the Parish Court acted illegally or ultra vires her statutory authority, or that the criminal trial of the applicants in the court below is a nullity,” the ruling stated in part.

“There is a suitable alternative remedy available to the applicants by way of an appeal. The applicants have failed to demonstrate a basis on which the criminal trial in the court below ought properly to be stayed,” the ruling added.

In addition to rejecting the applications, the court reserved its decision on the issue of costs.

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.