QUEEN’S Counsel KD Knight, after complaining bitterly about injustice and unfairness, pressed without luck on Thursday in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court to have the fraud case against his client Floyd Grindley, a former general manager of Petrojam, dismissed. Grindley and former chairman of the company, Dr Perceval Bahado Singh, are before the court on charges.

Knight applied for the dismissal after questions that were being put to witness Tamara Robinson by the prosecution did not appear in any of the official statements that were given by witnesses prior to Monday’s start of the trial. While Robinson, a legal officer and corporate secretary of Petrojam for eight years, was being cross-questioned by the prosecution, she was asked to explain her roles and functions. During the explanation, she alluded to specific terms such as onboarding and orientation with regards to the welcoming of new board members to Petrojam. Her explanation evoked unease in Knight, who rose to his feet to object to the process and recommend that his client be relieved from the proceedings. He complained that since the start of the trial, there have been numerous attempts by the prosecution to seek out information from the witnesses that were not admitted in evidence, which Knight said he was flabbergasted by.

“I move for the dismissal of my client Mr Grindley because there can be no explanation given which cures abuse or injustice. I move for the dismissal of Mr Grindley from these defective proceedings.

You should be bound by the witness statement. I have analysed the statements given, the opening given for indictment, analysed the indictment, and I have related the indictment to each statement to see if the material provided to me, taking the prosecutions case as it is.

“I can’t be efficient and effective if I am going to be taken by surprise at the trial. I am at a loss to even think to cross-examine Miss Robinson. I am flabbergasted. Having listened to the witness and having read the disclosed statement, there is a very wide gap because she is saying things that are not in the statements. The Crown’s presentation is reflected through the statements of witnesses. I am unable to get proper instructions if the witness is here to say a variety of things that are different or additional to what is in the statement.

Knight added that if the witness does not know what the prosecution’s case is until trial, then the trial becomes unfair and in breach of procedure.

“One act is sufficient to cause injustice. The prosecution, to this stage, has violated the procedures more than once, but clearly now. As the guardian of justice, the court has a responsibility not simply to prevent this from happening, though it does, but in this case, so pernicious it is that at this point, the court could and indeed should take the position that the injustice is of such a nature that a fair trial cannot result from it. This is such an egregious departure that it grows into being an abuse of process.”

Knight’s stance received swift support from Bert Samuels, the attorney representing Singh. Samuels chided the trial and said that he was deeply troubled by the “ambush exercise”.

Samuels told the court that, “I adopt what my learned friend has said. Ninety per cent of what the witness has testified so far is not in her statement. If it is part of her function, why wasn’t it not in the statement? At the end of the day we have to compare witness with witness. When a witness commits to a statement, we use it to test another witness.”

Parish Judge Maxine Ellis, however, did not yield to the requests from the legal representatives. Taking control of the proceedings, she said she had not heard any specifics that Robinson told the court that would amount to abuse.

“The witness spoke about her duties at Petrojam. Up to Wednesday it was said that when she came she would be here to talk about the joint venture agreement. All that is said during the trial I am listening to. I was anticipating that she would be saying something about the joint venture agreement. The evidence of the witness, for her to say what she does, she has to explain. The clarification is part of any evidence. As the witness has explained, it is well within context. I don’t see how this deprives the defence of the ability to cross-question the witness. As a matter of fact, it puts the defence in a position to properly cross-question the witness. I do not see how it would result in unfairness. I caution the Crown that they cannot speak about an area that was not disclosed to the defence,” said the presiding judge.

The prosecution then told the court that “there is no abuse of process, no injustice, and no ambush”.