Wildman wrangles with judge over omissions in Reid indictment order

Defence lawyer Hugh Wildman has put Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell on notice that he will be seeking an order to pause the fraud trial involving former Education Minister Ruel Reid.

Wildman made his intention known after the judge on Friday dismissed his application for the case against Reid and his four co-accused to be thrown out due to what he described as a critical error in the indictment.

“On Tuesday, I will be seeking a stay of the trial,” Wildman said after the ruling, while informing the judge that he will be seeking a judicial review of her decision in the Supreme Court.

Wildman, who represents Professor Fritz Pinnock, the former head of the Caribbean Maritime University (CMU), argued in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court on Thursday that the indictment order – which authorises the commencement of the matter – contains information only relating to Pinnock and Reid, despite five individuals being on trial.

He said the indictment did not mention Reid’s wife, Sharen, their daughter Sharelle, and Jamaica Labour Party Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence, who are also charged in connection with an arrangement to defraud CMU and the education ministry of over $25 million.

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 argued. “This cannot be cured because the trial has commenced on an order that does not exist.

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

Wildman described the issue as a fundamental legal flaw that cannot be corrected within the current proceedings, urging the court to refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

However, Burrell rejected the claim.

She ruled on Friday that the three women were covered in the indictment order and that the trial should proceed.

“In the present case, the Crown endorsed an indictment order on the back of a number one information that charges Mr Reid and Mr Pinnock with the offence of conspiracy to defraud. That order begins with the following words, ‘On 13 October 2025, the indicted accused herein charged before me this day for the offences of’ and that is the report.

“Notably, the indictment order references specific information from courts and courts, which include the three individuals before the court, that is, the three ladies,” she said.

She further referenced Section 272 of the Parish Courts Act, which governs the transformation of summary proceedings into trials on indictment.

“This section mandates that upon completion of the inquiry, which we now call an opening, the Crown must apply for an indictment for a complaint which must be endorsed on the information and signed by a judge of the parish court.”

She noted that in cases involving multiple evidence sources, there is no specific authority or statutory provision indicating which order must be endorsed.

“Two consequences flow from the compliance in Section 272. The indictment order authorises the Crown to prefer an indictment against those named or otherwise identified in the order in respect of the charges specified.

Furthermore,” she said, Section 273 enables the Crown to add additional charges beyond the original information, based on evidence disclosed during the inquiry.

Wildman’s application came after testimony from the prosecution’s first witness – a minister of religion and employee at Jamaica College – who identified a deceased individual who he said was Reid’s driver.

The witness testified that the brother had died on November 28, 2020, and was buried on December 19 that year.

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.

However, Burrell dismissed Armstrong’s argument as having no merit in her ruling.

Attorney Carolyn Chuck, who represents Sharelle Reid, had also argued that the three women were never properly before the court. However, Burrell said her position was puzzling, particularly given her involvement in the matter since 2019.

“It is difficult to comprehend. I am hard pressed to understand on what basis her client would have continuously appeared if there were no document, namely, a number one information before the court,” she said.

Lead prosecutor Ashtelle Steele had rejected the defence’s claims, insisting all five accused are properly before the court. She pointed out that while the indictment is signed and endorsed on only one “number one” information document, it references 15 such documents that collectively cover all the defendants.

The five were arrested and charged in 2019. They face several charges, including conspiracy to defraud, corruption, acquiring and handling criminal property, and participating in an arrangement to retain criminal property.