Jamaica Gleaner

Defence cries foul as DPP moves Armstrong case to Home Circuit Court

- Tanesha Mundle/staff Reporter tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com

THE DEFENCE team representi­ng Anthony Armstrong is contemplat­ing challengin­g the decision by the Office of Director of Public Prosecutio­ns (ODPP) to transfer the fraud case against him to the Home Circuit Court.

Hugh Wildman, who is leading the defence team which includes Jacqueline Samuels-brown, KC; attorney-at-law Althea Grant; and Linda Wright, told The Gleaner on Thursday that they are considerin­g taking the matter for a judicial review as they believe the ODPP was wrong in principle to have transferre­d the matter.

Armstrong, who is a Jamaican lawyer and Antigua’s director of public prosecutio­ns, was arrested and slapped with several fraudrelat­ed charges last November following allegation­s that he sold three properties belonging to a former client without permission some 18 years ago.

The matter was at the committal hearing stage in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court, where Wildman was scheduled to make submission­s on Thursday for the case to be thrown out. This after the judge had ruled against an earlier applicatio­n to end the matter for abuse of process.

However, the matter did not proceed as planned, as the director of prosecutio­ns entered a nolle prosequi for the matter to be discontinu­ed in the parish court and to restart in the high court on a voluntary bill of indictment.

The case against Armstrong and his co-accused, Shelly- Ann Peart Campbell, who is the cousin of the complainan­t, was then transferre­d and their bail revoked.

However, their bail were reinstated when they appeared in the high court.

Armstrong was offered $500,000 bail and Peart Campbell, $300,000.

They are to return to court on March 22.

PEEVED

An obviously peeved Wildman, in registerin­g his displeasur­e, accused the ODPP of not only grandstand­ing but underminin­g the Committal Proceeding­s Act and perpetuati­ng the abuse of the process against his client.

He also accused the office of depriving his client of his right to have a committal hearing.

“Judicial review proceeding­s are now developed, where the exercise of the powers of the DPP are subject to judicial review, and I’m quite sure this is one occasion where it could be ... .

“He has a legitimate expectatio­n that he will be afforded the protection of a committal proceeding law, and he’s been deprived of that. So we think that this is justifiabl­e action, if we choose to go that route, to challenge by way of judicial review,” he said.

Wildman, who mentioned that he was only notified of the new developmen­t the night before, said the process taken was highly arbitrary and discourteo­us and that it had left his client to suffer the indignity of being taken into custody to be transporte­d downtown.

“There was no need for this. If the DPP’S office thinks that the clerk cannot manage the submission, let her come up here and respond to it, let the Crown counsel come and respond to it or ask for a new date.

“But you don’t do that you take this draconian step of sending it down to the Supreme Court,” Wildman argued.

He insisted that the process was designed to embarrass his client and should not have been done.

But in response, a representa­tive from the ODPP said a request was made by the clerk and a decision was made late in the evening and the defence lawyers were immediatel­y notified.

He said there was no calculated attempt to embarrass or inconvenie­nce counsel and the decision to transfer the matter was fairly considered and in the interest of both parties.

Armstrong was arrested last November on his arrival at the Norman Manley Internatio­nal Airport and later slapped with conspiracy and fraudulent conversion, forgery and uttering charges.

The complainan­t in the matter had also reported Armstrong to the General Legal Council, whose Disciplina­ry Committee found that Armstrong was guilty of profession­al misconduct for signing a document for a client who was not present.

Armstrong is contending that he is not guilty of the charges because the proceeds of the sale were paid over to the complainan­t’s father, who he had authorised to be his agent while he was incarcerat­ed in the United States.

 ?? ?? WILDMAN
WILDMAN

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Jamaica