Defence, prosecution clash over disclosures in Ruel Reid case

THE first official day of the multimillion-dollar fraud trial involving former Education Minister Ruel Reid opened with a clash between the defence and the prosecution about the sharing of disclosures, and the defence arguing that no order of indictment ought to be granted to allow the trial to proceed.

Reid was charged along with his wife and daughter, Sharen and Sharelle Reid; former president of Caribbean Maritime University Fritz Pinnock; and former Jamaica Labour Party councillor Kim Brown Lawrence.

Allegations are that over $50 million in government funding was diverted from programmes, resulting in charges for breaches of the Corruption Prevention Act, conspiracy to defraud, misconduct in a public office at common law, and breaches of the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell, who has taken over the trial from Judge Vaughn Facey, who was absent on Monday, heard two submissions from the defence on Tuesday, the first of which included a request that the trial be adjourned to allow them time to go through the disclosures shared by the Crown.

Carolyn Chuck, who represents accused Sharelle Reid, spoke at length about difficulties the defence was experiencing with the prosecution.

She explained that the prosecution had served disclosures, or the relevant information and evidence in the trial, using an electronic link/cloud-sharing platform.

Chuck said the link contained hundreds of documents, some of them numbering up to 1,000 pages, and indicated that even after the prosecution had indicated all documents had been shared, uploads were still being made to the cloudshare.

“I feel like I am being ambushed,” Chuck said, adding, “We have been going through — and it is virtually impossible for me to properly represent my client in this short space of time”.

She described the Crown’s uploading of additional documents without notifying the defence as “improper”.

Chuck was supported by fellow attorneys Hugh Wildman, who represents Pinnock; and Anthony Armstrong, who represents Ruel Reid. Both had similar concerns about the timing of disclosures and the format in which it was served.

However, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Ashtelle Steele responded: “I am starting to believe it is deliberate… each time the defence raises something else, or a similar issue, and states it in a different way.”

She told the court that the majority of electronic documents shared were re-uploads of documents previously shared in disclosure, and that the prosecution had done its best to organise the documents for ease of access for the defence.

She added that the defence had been notified whenever new documents were served.

“At no point can we say the delay in this matter falls squarely on the Crown, if at all,” she said.

She added that practice direction from the chief justice was that electronic disclosure was encouraged.

“Disclosure is disclosure; the law does not indicate in must be hard copy,” she said.

Steele reminded the court that the prosecution had previously requested an adjournment because of issues finding the witnesses in the trial, and had asked to start the trial in February.

She said this was strongly objected to by the defence, who had indicated their willingness to begin.

For offences being tried on indictment in Jamaica’s parish court, an indictment order has to be signed by a judge to confirm they have jurisdiction to try a case, after which the accused may be arraigned or called to answer the criminal charges against them.

Steele rose to ask that the order of indictment be granted to arraign the accused, but there was immediate and lengthy opposition from Wildman.

The attorney claimed that the evidence underpinning the prosecution’s case was obtained illegally, in breach of the Financial Investigations Division (FID) Act, and is inadmissible in court.

Wildman told the court that not only does the FID not have the power of arrest, but the powers of the FID are not transmissible to members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force, except lawmen who are designated authorised officers.

He added that any statements collected by the FID, or its authorised officers, were subject to a certain level of secrecy, as outlined by the Act.

Wildman then posited that the statements now being relied on by the prosecution to ask for the order of indictment violated the Act, which he says “clearly indicates” the statements and the information gathered ought not to be disclosed to anyone, and thus, he said, could not be used in the trial.

The attorney went on to add that the rule applied to the search warrants obtained and used during the investigation, and reiterated that any information gathered by members of the JCF from the FID for use in an investigation was inadmissible.

Wildman said that unless the prosecution can prove it has other statements outside of these, a formal verdict of not guilty must be entered, and the case brought to an end.

Burrell is expected, when the trial resumes on October 13, to hear from the prosecution in its response to Wildman and rule on both submissions — whether the indictment order is to be granted, and whether an adjournment will be granted to give the defence more time to assess disclosures.

On Tuesday, some of the accused arrived supported by family members, while Reid arrived and departed separately from his wife and daughter.

In addition, multiple civilians turned up at court to hear the proceedings, citing public interest.

Bail was extended for the accused to return to court on Monday at 11:00 am.