Former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) President Professor Fritz Pinnock has lost his appeal against the High Court ruling that there was no bias in the chief parish court judge’s ruling that he and his co-accused, including former Education Minister Ruel Reid, have a case to answer in a multimillion-dollar fraud matter.
An October 6 trial date has been set in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court for Pinnock and his co-accused.
The Court of Appeal, however, dismissed the appeal on Friday, but attorney Hugh Wildman, who is representing Pinnock and Reid told The Gleaner that he will be taking the matter to the United Kingdom-based Privy Council.
“We are saying that there is a constitutional issue here; a judge cannot make a pronouncement on a matter and having made that pronouncement says he is conflicted and that stands. It cannot! If a jury had said that could that verdict stand?” he questioned.
Both men had taken issue with Chief Parish Judge Chester Crooks’ February 2021 ruling in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court and had sought an appeal; however, Reid withdrew from the matter last April.
The parish judge, after making the ruling, had indicated that he was recusing himself from the trial because there might be a possible case of conflict of interest.
It was later revealed that the judge’s conflict of interest related to the fact that Reid was previously known to him, as he was the head boy when Crooks attended Munro College.
The two applicants, who contended that Crooks was conflicted when he made the ruling, consequently sought a judicial review for the parish judge ruling to be quashed on the basis that there was a bias in the judge’s decision.
UNLAWFUL DECLARATION
They also sought a declaration for Crooks’ decision to be ruled unlawful, null and void and of no effect.
However, the Full Court panel of justices Cresencia Brown Beckford, Lisa Palmer Hamilton and Trecia Hutchinson Shelly refused their application.
Brown, in handing down the ruling, said the claimant had not established “on a balance of probability that the inferior court was biased”.
She had stated that Crooks, by nature of his training, would have disabused his mind of any irrelevant personal beliefs or predisposition and set aside any unconscious bias.
The judge had also explained that it must have been a case where the applicants waived their rights to full disclosure as they never raised any objection or sought further information when Crooks mentioned before starting the application that there could be a possible conflict of interest.
Brown also asserted that the court did not believe that Crooks would have brought a partial mind to the hearing because of a “scant acquaintance”.
The court had also highlighted that there was no evidence that Crooks and Reid had any specific interaction or association when they were in school many years ago.
Nor was there evidence of a personal or acrimonious relationship.
At the same time, the judges found that there was a failure on Crooks’ part in not providing full disclosure.
Meanwhile Justice Paulette Williams, who read the decision yesterday, noted that the claimant had lost the appeal on all five grounds.
‘WITHOUT MERIT’
“The complaint that the Full Court erred in law in failing to appreciate that the expression by the learned judge while handing down his decision that he had a potential conflict of interest gave rise to apparent bias on his behalf is based on an incorrect premise and is entirely without merit.
“There is and can be no challenge to the fact that the Full Court fully demonstrated an appreciation of the law and the relevant test for the determination of judicial bias,” she added.
Williams said further that the Full Court did not err in concluding that the appellant, through his counsel, must be taken to have waived their rights to further disclosure based on what had transpired.
“The full court properly considered and accepted the unchallenged evidence that the learned judge had stated that he would rather not deal with the matter because of a potential conflict of interest, but if there were no objections, he would have no problem dealing with it at case management level.
“The Full Court accepted that Mr Wildman interjected and prevented what the Full Court described as further flow of information and further disclosure and affirmed his confidence in the ability of the learned judge to deal with the matter impartially,” the judge said.
The judge said while the learned judge admitted that he did not make full disclosure at the initial stage, the reason he did not cannot be ignored.
Crooks’ ruling was in response to a preliminary objection raised by Reid and Pinnock on the basis that the charges against them should be nullified as the Financial Investigations Division (FID), which levelled the charges, had no authority in law to arrest or charge them.
Reid’s wife, Sharen; their daughter, Sharelle; and Kim Brown Lawrence, the Jamaica Labour Party councillor for the Brown’s Town division, too, were charged in the matter involving nearly $50 million, which was allegedly diverted from the CMU.
The accused are to return to the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court for the continuation of a plea and case management hearing on May 5, ahead of the October trial date.
Lisa White, from the Attorney General’s Department, represented Crooks at the Court of Appeal.
Richard Small and Shawn Steadman represent the FID, which appears as an interested party in the matter.
