THE prosecution and defence attorneys clashed on Wednesday about whether an invoice concerning the purchase of eyeglasses should be allowed into evidence in the ongoing fraud trial of former Education Minister Ruel Reid and his co-accused.

The invoice was brought up during the second day of testimony from a Corporate Area businesswoman who had told the court on Tuesday that the former minister of education had purchased two pairs of frames and corresponding lenses from her eye clinic on August 15, 2018.

Recalling the 2018 purchase during examination in chief, the witness said that after a discount which took the total to $110,000 and around $16,000 in health insurance deductions, she remembered charging Reid around $92,000 for the glasses, but added that the exact amounts would have been recorded on an invoice generated by the systems used at the clinic.

She further said that Reid handed her a debit card to use for the payment and entered his pin prior to the successful completion of the purchase.

On Tuesday, she told the court in detail the systems through which records are made, including patient management system Cliniko, which kept medical records and receipts of purchase, and a Provider Access System, which concerned the use of health cards.

She also detailed how records are kept at the clinic and that she had been the person to take medical and general information and process payments from Reid when he visited the establishment.

The witness was then asked about January 31, 2019 and indicated in response that she had been visited by a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) on that day and she proceeded to search her system for an invoice as well as contact the company’s secretary to retrieve payment receipts corresponding to a certain payment amount.

She then indicated that she had given a statement and printed an invoice on that date and dated it and signed it before giving it to the DSP.

She also indicated she would “absolutely” be able to recognise the invoice.

“I know what my Cliniko invoices look like,” she explained, adding that it would also contain her signature.

However, when the prosecution tried to show the document to the witness, defence attorney representing Reid, Anthony Armstrong, objected, stating that they had been served multiple corresponding documents with different dates, including February 4, 2019 and March 16, 2020.

While the prosecution initially withdrew its request to show her the document and attempted to ask the witness about February 4, 2019, Armstrong objected again but was overruled by presiding judge Justice Sanchia Burrell, who indicated that the question was permissible.

When the prosecution asked if she remembered the date February 4, 2019, the witness initially asked for clarification but told the court that, while she could not pinpoint the exact date, she had multiple visits from multiple lawmen, including two that were only days apart.

She reiterated that the only time she handed over an invoice to the lawman who visited her was on January 31.

The prosecution again asked that the witness be shown the document, to which there was a repeat of earlier objections from defence counsel.

In defending its decision, the prosecution argued that the invoice was relevant based on counts included on the indictment, and maintained that the defence would have a chance to cross-examine the witness.

Burrell ruled against the objection, indicating she was satisfied the invoice was relevant to the case.

When the witness was handed the document, she confirmed that it was the Cliniko invoice printed from Reid’s transaction, identifying her handwriting and signature.

At this point another objection was raised by Armstrong, who said the defence had been served three different invoices in relation to the witness.

The judge then rose, granting a five-minute recess for the defence to produce the three invoices and confer with the prosecution.

Upon Burrell’s return to the courtroom, the prosecution maintained that there were only two documents and both were the same; only the dates of the signatures affixed to the invoices were different.

The defence’s objection was overruled and the invoice admitted into evidence; the witness then showed the court the business name and the name of Ruel Reid on the invoice, as well as the transaction date August 15, 2018 and the total Reid paid by card, $93,200, and the amount covered by insurance, $16,800.

During cross-examination by Armstrong, when the witness was asked whether she had printed the invoice and signed it on the same day, she said, “Based on my recollection, yes.” She also said that based on her recollection she only handed over one invoice, but added that, “The invoice that was shown to me has a different date on it, but it was definitely my signature and handwriting…” She added, “So my memory must have failed me.” The witness went on to confirm that she must have misremembered only signing one invoice on one date, noting that it was absolutely her writing on the document.

She also confirmed that the only difference between the invoice admitted into evidence and an identical document shown to her by the defence was the date when signatures were affixed to each.

Witness testimony is expected to continue when the trial resumes on Thursday.

The five accused — Reid, his wife Sharen Reid and daughter Sharelle Reid as well as former head of the Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) Fritz Pinnock and Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence — are alleged to have participated with others unknown in a scheme that siphoned off $25 million from the Ministry of Education and CMU.

Prosecutors allege that the money came from fraudulent payments made for work that was never done or services which were never provided to either the ministry or the university.

The accused have maintained their innocence throughout, pleading not guilty to all the charges on the 35-count indictment.

The accused are not subject to all of the charges; rather, they are charged with different counts, some jointly, resulting in a total of 35.

Reid is subject to the most charges, having been named in over 30 counts.