Chief Parish Court Judge Chester Crooks, who yesterday ruled that former Education Minister Ruel Reid and Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Professor Fritz Pinnock and their co-accused should go to trial on corruption charges laid from 2019, has recused himself from trying the case, citing a possible conflict of interest.

“Having regard to the submissions made by both the Crown and the defence in this matter, and having considered all the arguments…on both sides, it is my ruling and finding that the matter is now properly before the Court and should proceed to trial,” Justice Crooks said.

He, however, said having conferred with fellow judges he had concluded that he would recuse himself from being the trial judge as there was a possible conflict of interest, given that one of the defendants was known to him on a personal level.

Crooks, who did not identify the defendant, said he was in dialogue with another magistrate to have the matter tried by that judge instead. He noted, further, that once the matter got going there should be no hitches as it is already of “some vintage”.

In giving the reason for not indicating a trial date yesterday, as was expected, the judge said this was due to indications by the Crown that its case file was incomplete as “substantial cyber forensic data” had been sent overseas for analysis, and has been delayed due to the novel coronavirus pandemic. In addition, disclosure (where each party is required to make known any documents/evidence that may be considered relevant to the case) was not complete.

As a result, the case was set for mention on July 27 and the bail of the accused extended.

“The Crown’s house is not yet in order; it is better the matters in the cases be managed now so that when the time comes for it to be tried there is no further delay,” Justice Crooks stated.

He also addressed criticism in the public domain regarding the length of time the matter has already spent before the Court.

“Anyone before the Court is innocent until proven guilty. The Crown has a role to play as well as the defence. Yes, this is an old enough matter; yes, there is further delay, but the defendants have a right to a fair trial. There was at least one public utterance [that the delay gives a bad impression].

“I will say this for myself, every defendant has the right to a fair trial…everybody is entitled to due process. I am saying this in explaining why the July date will not be a trial date. They are entitled to due process, it is their right to exercise any legal option available to them,” the judge noted.

Lawmen in October 2019 arrested and charged Reid, his wife Sharen, daughter Sharelle, Pinnock, and Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence (Jamaica Labour Party, Brown’s Town Division, St Ann) during early-morning raids at their homes in a coordinated strike, acting on allegations of financial improprieties in which funds were allegedly siphoned from the university and the Ministry of Education.

They were subsequently brought before the Half-Way-Tree Criminal Court and charged, but released on bail.

Attorney Hugh Wildman has been lobbying the Court to throw out the case against Reid and Pinnock on the basis that his clients were arrested by officers of the Financial Investigation Division (FID), which, he claims, has no jurisdiction so to do as they are purely an investigative body and not empowered to carry out arrests.

Wildman has maintained that by arresting both defendants the FID acted outside of its statutory powers and, therefore, what it did was a “nullity”.

Yesterday, Wildman told the Jamaica Observer that he was “in profound disagreement with Justice Crooks’s ruling”.

“Having presented some serious legal arguments over the past months in this matter one would have expected that the learned magistrate, who is a senior parish court judge, would have had some written reason for us as to why he ruled against us, because some serious legal arguments have been presented in this matter and one would expect that the judge, having heard these arguments and having taken time out…one would have expected this morning that one would be coming to something in writing that we can know the basis on which the application has been refused,” the attorney contended.

“That was not the case; that’s unfortunate, because in this day and age when you have these matters…the point was made that when you have these rulings adverse to an accused person you should have reasons and that has not been the case in this instance. So the applicants have been denied that, and we think that is regrettable,” he said.

In the meantime, he said all was not lost as the accused have filed an application before the Appeal Court seeking leave to take the matter before the United Kingdom Privy Council, given that the Court of Appeal denied their application to have a ruling by the Supreme Court in the matter overturned.

The Supreme Court, in March last year, rejected a second attempt by Wildman to have the criminal charges against his clients dismissed, and declared that it was firmly of the view that “the application must fail”.

The Court further said it was of the view that the designated officers acted within their Jamaica Constabulary Force powers when they arrested and charged the applicants, as they took with them “all their powers and authority as police officers into their assignment to work at the FID”.

“There is nothing in the FID Act that prohibits them from carrying out their normal functions as police officers,” the Court stated.

Furthermore, it said the applicants had failed to establish failures to comply with the FID Act and, therefore, there was no basis to declare the charges null and void and of no legal effect.

“In all circumstances, the application fails because there is a viable alternative remedy, and even if this were not so, the applicants failed to establish the existence of an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success,” the ruling stated.