Reid, Pinnock lose again

Court rejects application for leave for judicial review a second time

PRESIDENT OF the Caribbean Maritime Institute, Professor Fritz Pinnock, and former Education Minister Ruel Reid were dealt a heavy blow yesterday when a Full Court panel unanimously rejected their renewed application for judicial review as they attempted, for a second time, to quash the criminal charges against them.

Their application for leave of judicial review was initially rejected by Chief Justice Bryan Sykes, but in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Civil Procedure Rule, the men renewed their application.

The application was last month heard by a Full Court panel of judges comprising Justices David Batts, Chester Stamp, and Stephane Jackson-Haisley.

Reid and Pinnock, through attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, contended that the Financial Investigations Division (FID) was not empowered by law to bring the charges against them and, therefore, acted illegally.

They further argued that the FID was purely an investigative body and did not have the legal authority to bring criminal charges or obtain a fiat from the director of public prosecutions to prosecute them.

In the 43-page ruling obtained by The Gleaner, Justice Batts concluded that there was no indication that the FID laid any charges against the men, citing that all the formal criminal charges were signed by constables, some of the rank of inspector.

He also noted that even if the criminal charges had been laid by FID agents, it would be for the trial judge to determine if the taint was sufficient to justify the dismissal of charges.

In relation to the power of the FID, Justice Batts said that it was manifest that the respondent (FID) was more than just an investigative body.

ACTED WITHIN JCF POWERS

Jackson-Haisely, who agreed with Batts, said that the FID-designated officers acted within their JCF powers when they arrested and charged the applicants.

“The police officers take with them all their powers and authority as police officers into their assignment to work at the FID. I agree that there is nothing in the FIDA (Financial Investigations Division Act) that prohibits them from carrying out their normal functions as police officers. I am, therefore, of the view that it was these officers who effected the charges in their own right and that it was not the FID that charged the applicants,” she said.

The High Court judge said, too, that that Reid and Pinnock had not exhausted all their remedies to address the issues they had and consequently did not meet the test to be granted leave for judicial review.

She said that the men have a viable alternative remedy available to them in the form of the Parish Court.

Justice Stamp adopted the reasoning and conclusion of the other two judges.

The court subsequently dismissed the application and awarded costs to the FID.

Reid; his wife Sharen; their daughter Sharelle, as well as Pinnock and Brown’s Town division Councillor Kim Brown Lawrence were last October arrested and charged following a yearlong corruption probe into the education ministry and CMU.

The five are scheduled to return to the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court on April 8.