Judge puts firm timeline on Ruel Reid case

THERE will be no more extended allowances for attorneys in the fraud case of former education minister Ruel Reid following a strict notice by presiding Judge Sanchia Burrell, indicating they must all be ready for court on October 5.

After six years before the courts and nine months of a “stuttering” trial with little to show for the time, Burrell on Wednesday said the availability of judicial time and importantly the rights of the remaining four persons, “cannot indefinitely… yield to the scheduling difficulties of one attorney”.

“It will not happen in this court. The court has exercised considerable patience,” she added, pointing to multiple adjournments that had been granted to accommodate scheduling and other issues for different attorneys, in particular Hugh Wildman, since the October 6, 2025 start of the trial.

Burrell said that there comes a point at which justice requires certainty.

“That point has been reached,” she said firmly.

The trial has suffered from absences with and without notice and resulting adjournments leading the judge to make orders in February 2026, clearing certain dates and authorising afternoon sittings in an attempt to get it moving.

Burrell likened the issue to juggling plates.

In sharing her case management pronouncement, she acknowledged that many of the issues stemmed from a lengthy ongoing jury trial in which attorneys Linda Wright, Anthony Armstrong and Wildman are also involved.

Burrell noted that while the court had a responsibility to manage proceedings fairly, it was not the court’s function to organise dates around the competing commitments that any counsel may have.

She further stressed that it was the responsibility of attorneys to organise themselves so that they can fulfil their obligations to different clients.

All five accused in the case are represented by different attorneys — Reid is represented by Wright and Armstrong; former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) head Fritz Pinnock by Wildman; Sharen Reid by Shannen Clarke; Sharelle Reid by Carolyn Chuck; and Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence by attorney Oswest Senior-Smith.

While she acknowledged that all accused persons have the right to be represented by counsel of their choice, the judge stressed that this was not an absolute right and must be balanced against other rights including the right to a fair trial within reasonable time, especially when there is a trial with multiple accused.

“The repeated inability of one attorney to attend proceedings inevitably impacts not only upon the accused person whom that attorney represents, but also upon every other accused person before the court,” she said.

Burrell noted that, to Wildman’s credit, he had appeared to complete his cross-examination even as he is engaged with the simultaneous jury trial.

She said that the court had moderated its expectations and accommodated counsel in recognition of that complex trial, but noted that accommodations could not continue to be made indefinitely without compromising the rights of the accused and the court’s duty to ensure fair and efficient disposal of proceedings.

The jury trial is now expected to go to September. In acknowledgement of this, Burrell has granted one further adjournment, to October 5.

“The parties are, however, placed on clear notice that a matter will proceed on that date,” she said.

The judge instructed the prosecution to be ready with their witnesses and all the attorneys, in particular Wildman, to ensure appropriate arrangements are in place for the resumption.

“I am expecting that all the lawyers will be here or someone instructed, or junior counsel,” she said.

Last October, the defendants pleaded not guilty to an exhaustive list of charges as the Crown outlined allegations, including that the former education minister and his family members instructed a domestic worker to set up an account in which millions were deposited, but controlled the corresponding ATM card.

Prosecutors told the court that between March 2016 and October 2019 the five accused participated in a scheme with others unknown, which siphoned off a revised figure of more than $25 million from both the Ministry of Education and CMU.

It is alleged that this money was funnelled through transfers to various accounts either owned or controlled by the accused, or handed over in cash, with the recipients either knowing, or reasonably should have known, it was criminal property, resulting in charges of acquisition of criminal property.

Pinnock and Reid are accused of using their roles as public servants to mastermind and effect a scheme in which individuals were being paid on a regular basis by CMU, without knowledge that they were being paid; and in which invoices for goods and services were generated, but not by the individuals being paid, who did not at any time provide the stated services or goods to CMU, resulting in charges of conspiracy to defraud.

The two are also charged with acts of corruption under Section 15 of the Corruption Act — Pinnock for allegedly facilitating the payment of monies from CMU by authorising fraudulent vouchers, and Reid, in his capacity as a minister, for causing money to be paid out from the ministry and CMU for work, goods, and services not provided.