Clearly frustrated by disruptions caused by the repeated absence of a defence attorney, Justice Sanchia Burrell on Wednesday told co-accused Fritz Pinnock that he may have to cross-examine a witness himself if no legal representation is present for him when the delay-plagued Ruel Reid fraud trial resumes next Monday.

“I’m expecting that counsel will be here and that you will be assisted or represented in so far as proceedings are concerned. It may, however, be that you will have to apply those doctoral muscles and ask questions in cross-examination,” Burrell told Pinnock, former head of Caribbean Maritime University (CMU).

Pinnock was in the dock alongside his co-accused — Reid, the former education minister; his wife Sharen Reid and daughter Sharelle Reid; as well as Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence (Jamaica Labour Party, Brown’s Town Division).

The five are before the Half-Way-Tree Parish Court in the high-profile $25-million trial.

The judge’s comments followed the departure of a witness, who was placed on hold for the possibility of cross-examination by Pinnock’s attorney Hugh Wildman.

It was highlighted that at least two witnesses have now been deferred for cross-examination by the lawyer.

Burrell, in fielding the Crown’s concerns about the arrangement, maintained that the court could not defer every witness, noting that it impacts how the evidence flows and how the court is organised.

While she impressed upon Pinnock that she would be present to assist him, if necessary, reminding him that she is an independent arbiter, the judge made it clear she expected an attorney to be present to give him the representation he deserved.

“If not, Mr Pinnock, please come prepared to type or write and prepare cross-examination,” she said.

The directive followed statements made by Justice Burrell Wednesday morning about the way in which Wildman was communicating his absences to the court. She described it as piecemeal, disjointed communication that was unhelpful at best.

The trial had resumed Wednesday morning with one attorney, Carolyn Chuck, who represents Reid’s daughter Sharelle, present via Zoom. Oswest Senior-Smith, who represents Brown Lawrence, also joined late during the trial via Zoom.

Chuck briefed Burrell on the absences of several others, including Linda Wright, who represents Reid; Shannen Clarke, who represents Reid’s wife, Sharen; and Wildman, who had asked Chuck the day before to hold for him in the matter.

When she indicated that she was unable, she said Wildman had advised that he would ask another attorney to hold in his stead; but no one turned up.

Chuck went on to share that Wildman had indicated that he could also have challenges with being present next week as he was given time off from the Supreme Court to deal with the arrangements for his mother’s funeral.

Justice Burrell, acknowledging the sensitivity of the matter, extended condolence to Wildman’s family. However, she queried why this had not been communicated before.

“I don’t take lightly that Mr Wildman is making funeral arrangements for his mother, and my condolences go out to him and his family, but early information sharing makes a huge difference,” she maintained.

“I have to be very sensitive because all of us who are here either have a mother or had a mother at some point …but I am not understanding the lack of communication; the lack of communication is very unhelpful,” the judge said.

Emphasising that the case impacts four other accused, Burrell said Wildman and Pinnock are not entitled to an infinite supply of the court’s resources.

The judge’s comments come on the one-year anniversary of the official start of the trial, which has been plagued with scheduling challenges.

“It cannot be that Mr Wildman avoids appropriate and adequate communication and expects to get what he asks for,” she said.

“How can the rights of four other people be expected to continuously and infinitely, at this point in time, … be expected to yield to Mr Wildman’s failure — I am using the word failure — to organise himself?”

The judge impressed upon the court her sympathies for Wildman, but also highlighted that the attorney had secured time off from the Supreme Court, not the Parish Court, making it likely he had not intended to be present in the trial anyway, and that prior communication or arrangements should have been made, allowing the Parish Court to arrange itself accordingly.

“It should not have to be said, but counsel should only take on a workload that their chambers can support,” Burrell said.

The Crown expects to call more than 90 witnesses in the case and Burrell maintained that the witnesses are real people with lives of their own which must also be considered.
Wednesday’s witness, Brown’s Town Community College Principal Claudeth Haughton, shared information on the operations of the school, with the prosecution focusing specifically on whether lunches were provided for certain students.

The principal, who has served in the capacity since 2015, addressed the period of time from 2017 to 2019.

She told the court that the school has a number of courses, including customer engagement operation training.

Questions from the prosecution surrounded whether food was ever provided for the students of this course by the school, to which Haughton responded, “No.”

The prosecution also asked how students would have obtained meals.

The principal responded that students were at liberty to purchase meals from a restaurant, which she identified as operated by a Carol Brown, who rented the canteen on the college’s main campus in Brown’s Town to provide meals to students, staff, and visitors.

The principal confirmed that she had been visited by a police officer on April 9, 2019, after which she gathered certain documents relating to the registration of students in the programme.
While she indicated she knew Kim Brown Lawrence, who was introduced to her only as Kim at the time, Haughton confirmed that the community college had no relationship with either Kim Brown Lawrence, an individual cited as Joseph Martin, or Optimal Customer Service Consultancy.

She indicated that the college had not contracted any of these people to provide meals for the students or for any other purpose during the period 2017 to 2019.

Haughton admitted that there were certain occasions, such as honour roll events, when food would be provided for students and that the restaurateur on campus would’ve been contracted during that period to prepare refreshments.

Senior Smith, who represents Brown Lawrence, during cross-examination, asked whether it was the principal’s impression, based on questions asked by the prosecution, that his client had said she was a supplier of food for Brown’s Town Community College or its students.

The question prompted an objection by the prosecution.

But Justice Burrell allowed the question, and the witness indicated she had not formed any impression based on the questions.

Haughton told Senior Smith that while she was familiar with Brown’s Town in general and Brown’s Plaza, she was not familiar with any restaurants operated by Kim Brown Lawrence and her husband at said plaza.

She also confirmed that the college has, in the past, allowed both major political parties to host events, but indicated that any catering done would have been handled by the parties themselves.

Under further cross-examination by Senior Smith on whether Brown Lawrence had used the premises of the college for a Jamaica Labour Party divisional meeting in early 2018, Haughton said, “I cannot confirm.”

Upon further questioning from Senior Smith, who queried whether she was “not saying it did not happen” the witness repeated: “I cannot confirm that, sir.”

The principal also maintained that she had never been shown any statement purported to be that of Kim Brown Lawrence by police.

More witnesses are expected to be called in the case on Monday.

Brown Lawrence and the other four accused are before the court to answer to allegations that between March 2016 and October 2019 they 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, that 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.