LAWYERS representing former Education Minister Ruel Reid and former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Fritz Pinnock are heading to the Appeal Court to challenge a ruling by the Full Court that they have a case to answer.

In a ruling handed down on Friday, Supreme Court justices Crescentia Brown Beckford, Lisa Palmer-Hamilton and Tricia Hutchinson Shelly refused an application from the lawyers representing Reid and Pinnock to quash a February 4, 2021 decision of Chief Judge of the Parish Court (CJPC) Chester Crooks that they should stand trial in the multimillion-dollar fraud matter.

The panel further refused an application by the two for a declaration that the statement made by Justice Crooks in handing down his ruling in the Kingston and Saint Andrew Parish Court — Criminal Division — was enough to have the charges brought against them dismissed.

In addition, the panel ruled that the matter was properly before the court, and rejected that claim that the fact that Judge Crooks said he did not wish to continue as presiding judge in the matter, because he had a conflict of interest, made his ruling, “unlawful, null and void, and of no effect”.

“The stay of the criminal proceedings is set aside. The Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court should make every effort to schedule the matter for trial at the earliest possible date,” said the panel in its ruling delivered by Justice Brown Beckford.

In an immediate response, lead attorney for Reid and Pinnock, Hugh Wildman told the Jamaica Observer that he found the judgment strange on the aspect of the law.

“The court found that he [Judge Crooks] did not make full disclosure and that he made the statement at the end of his ruling — that is indicative of his state of mind,” said Wildman who had argued that the ruling by Judge Crooks represented a conflict of interest, apparent bias, unconscious bias, and a breach of the constitutional right to a fair hearing by an impartial court.

But in its ruling the Full Court noted that Judge Crooks, prior to the hearing of the application, indicated to all the parties that he might have a potential conflict of interest as he knew one of the accused in the matter.

He also informed the parties that if there was no objection from either side, he would have no problem dealing with the matter at case management.

At the time he delivered his ruling, Judge Crooks said, “I am recusing myself for more than one reason. Apart from having hearing (sic) the arguments, there is a possible conflict of interest. At least one of the defendants is relatively well known to me so I don’t think I ought to be the person who will try this matter.” According to the Full Court, no objection was taken by or on behalf of Reid or Pinnock to Justice Crooks continuing to hear the matter on any occasion, nor did any party seek any further information from him concerning his indication of a potential conflict of interest.

“The learned CJPC did not make a full disclosure of his potential conflict of interest, however, some indication of the possible source of conflict was given.

“The court finds that the claimants, through their counsel, must be taken to have unequivocally waived their right to further disclosure from the learned CJPC,” said the Full Court.

“The court finds further that it was not open to the claimants to wait and see how their application to dismiss the charges turned out before pursuing their complaint of bias,” added the Full Court.

Reid, Pinnock, Reid’s wife Sharen, their daughter Sharelle, and Jamaica Labour Party councillor for the Brown’s Town Division Kim Brown Lawrence have been charged in connection with a nearly $50-million fraud, which was allegedly diverted from the Ministry of Education and the CMU.

They are facing a range of offences including 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.