JAMAICA Labour Party Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence had an emotional reaction to evidence shared in court on Tuesday when receipts purporting to show payments from Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) to her were addressed as her attorney, Oswest Senior Smith, questioned a prosecution witness on whether any connection existed between her and the school.

Senior Smith was continuing his cross-examination of the witness, a former CMU employee, putting before the man a series of exhibits, including payment documents.

Senior Smith first asked the witness, who had held a senior finance position at CMU, whether documents, including contracts for goods or services provided, would have been submitted to the accounting department in order for payments to be authorised.

The witness confirmed this, and added that such contracts could have come from the school’s legal office or other departments.

He also testified that the approval of purchase requisitions simply meant that CMU, from a cash flow and budgeting perspective, would be able to undertake the financial obligation promised to a vendor.

The witness added that before disbursement, any payments would have to be signed by him, but ultimate approval rested with the school’s four authorised signatories. At least two of those signatures were required to approve payments, the witness testified.

SENIOR SMITH… continued cross-examination of witness who is a former Caribbean Maritime University employee (Photo: Naphtali Junior)

He also confirmed that invoices would be sent to the school from vendors requesting payment, and said that it was “the norm” on those invoices that a vendor could delegate a third party to whom the payment should be given.

The witness was presented with 12 documents, which he confirmed listed Brown Lawrence as a payee for services provided to CMU by Optimum Customer Service Consultancy.

The majority of the documents also included a letter to a named senior employee at CMU from Optimum Customer Service Consultancy and a subsequent memo from that senior employee to the witness referencing a partnership between CMU and the consultancy.

Senior Smith asked the witness whether he, after looking at all 12 documents, would agree that Brown Lawrence was a third party in relation to all the contracts between the consultancy and CMU.

“Yes, sir,” the witness responded.

The witness added that there were no payment instructions from Brown Lawrence and no documents provided by Brown Lawrence to CMU.

Upon hearing this response, Brown Lawrence began to shake her head, covering her mouth with her hand.

When asked if she was all right by sitting judge Sanchia Burrell, the councillor stood and responded that she was fine.

Brown Lawrence, along with former Education Minister Ruel Reid, former head of CMU Fritz Pinnock, Reid’s wife Sharen and their daughter Sharelle, are accused of participating in a scheme that resulted in the siphoning off of over $25 million from CMU and the Ministry of Education.

Outside of witness testimony, the defence again approached Burrell with concern over continuous disclosure from the prosecution.

Senior Smith and Carolyn Chuck, representing Sharelle Reid, both raised concerns.

Senior Smith, referencing disclosure with new material reportedly shared outside of business hours on Friday, maintained that the prosecution has both strength in numbers and legal acumen, decrying the “unfairness” being meted out to his client by the “drip drip” manner in which material was being shared.

He added that the prosecution is being embarrassed by late discoveries, and it raises concerns for the integrity and credibility of the case presented by the defence. In response, the Crown reiterated that it has a responsibility to disclose even if it is during trial, highlighting precedent and remedies set out by the Court of Appeal and Privy Council.

Senior Smith, however, maintained that it is unacceptable to claim new discoveries beyond a year into the trial.

After rising briefly, Burrell noted that “it is embarrassing” and said Senior Smith was right, in that it could possibly undermine the defence.

She added that the distinction between continuing to disclose and reconfiguring a case assumes particular importance in a seven-year-old matter with so many witnesses.

While maintaining that she could not make any prohibition on future disclosure, the judge urged the prosecution to hand over everything viable to the defence and made an order that the Crown meet with all the relevant authorities, investigators and others on or before November 23 to impress upon them the importance of handing over everything relevant to the case.

Burrell maintained that disclosure is not to serve the Crown but to provide justice, adding that the duty to disclose cannot operate as a continuous indulgence.

Citing the complexity and number of witnesses as well as public interest, the judge said: “It behoves us to remove the obstacles to a smooth process.”

She impressed upon the Crown to minimise complaints of non-disclosure by going over the evidence associated with their witnesses with a fine-tooth comb. She also urged the defence to go through disclosure thoroughly, making use of the assistance provided by the prosecution in navigating the documents.