Plagued by multiple delays over the past six years, the fraud trial of former Education Minister Ruel Reid, ex-Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Fritz Pinnock, and their co-accused suffered another setback on Monday when no defence attorneys were present before sitting judge Sanchia Burrell at the appointed 10:00 am start.

Four of the five accused — Reid, his daughter Sharelle and wife Sharen, as well as Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence (Jamaica Labour Party, Brown’s Town Division) — were present when court began, but without defence counsel the trial had to be adjourned so queries could be made regarding the whereabouts of the attorneys.

The trial has faced scheduling challenges not least an ongoing jury trial of six policemen on murder charges in relation to the 2013 killing of three men on Acadia Drive in which several of the defence attorneys are engaged.

Ruel Reid’s attorneys Linda Wright and Anthony Armstrong are listed in that case, as is Pinnock’s attorney Hugh Wildman.

While that Acadia Drive trial has paused submissions before a jury for several weeks, Justice Burrell was informed that the attorneys were still in that court dealing with matters that could be handled without the jury present.

While Burrell acknowledged this, she said that it had not been an unreasonable expectation that the attorneys involved would organise themselves so they could be present at the trial of Reid and his co-accused on this particular date.

The March 16 trial date had been set during a February 7 meeting at which Burrell made orders in an effort to establish a clear and realistic timeline to bring the trial to a close by or before July 2027.

Similar to Wright, Armstrong, and Wildman, Shannen Clarke — who represents Sharen Reid — was also not present, neither was Oswest Senior Smith who appears for Brown Lawrence.

When Carolyn Chuck, attorney for Sharelle Reid, arrived after struggling with parking — an issue that Burrell noted has posed challenges for attorneys in the past — she confirmed that all the other lawyers were at other courts dealing with other matters.

When Pinnock arrived, casually dressed, it was shared by Chuck, who held for the other attorneys, that he had rushed straight from medical treatment to be present.

Accepting the explanation, Burrell indicated that the court had the power to stay its hand in certain situations when attorneys make representation to the bench on behalf of their clients.

Anticipating further scheduling challenges from the resumption of the jury trial in April, and noting the difference between a judge-only and a jury trial, after consulting with the attorneys, Burrell said the wise thing to do would be to vacate the previously set dates in April.

Speaking to the accused, Burrell said: “I don’t know what you make of what is going on — certainly for the persons here who have lawyers who are involved in the jury matter you can understand the domino effect it has had on us.”

She told the accused there comes a point where they would have to make decisions in consideration of how they are going to proceed with the matter.

“This matter concerns you, it concerns your resources, which is inclusive of time, and so I am unhappily postponing the matter,” the judge said.

She asked the Crown, accused, and defence, to keep their calendars flexible in case the matter can be continued should time become available.

However, the trial has now been pushed back to May 13, 2026 with cross-examination expected to be completed, and submission of a special measures application regarding the use of technology and remote access.

The five stand accused of participating in a scheme with others unknown, between March 2016 and October 2019 which stole 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.

Prosecutors allege that fraudulent payments had been made for work that was never done or services which were never provided to either the ministry or university, and that money from these payments was transferred from CMU and the education ministry to the accused through either third parties or to bank accounts held or controlled by the accused.

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.