Knight: No evidence of dishonesty in Petrojam fraud case

KING’S COUNSEL KD Knight yesterday said the state is using “its great might” against two former Petrojam executives accused of defrauding the petroleum company by using allegedly fraudulent claims for overseas travel allowances amounting to more than US$70,000 (J$10,801,609.01).

Knight was continuing his no-case submission yesterday in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court where former General Manager Floyd Grindley and former board chair Dr Perceval Singh are standing trial.

Both Grindley and Singh have maintained their innocence.

Knight, along with Bianca Samuels, is representing Grindley, while attorneys-at-law Bert Samuels and Matthew Hyatt are representing Singh.

“It is as if the state is enraged. Why? Why?” Knight said to Parish Court Judge Maxine Ellis, who is presiding over the matter.

He told the court that there should be fairness in the justice system.

“The state has a responsibility to protect that and the state gives that right to the trial judge,” Knight said.

He indicated that the legal team for the defendants requested particulars, at the beginning of the trial, from the prosecution to no avail.

“We don’t get dem yet!” Knight said.

‘INNOCENT MUST BE PROTECTED’

He chided the prosecution for what he termed an attempt to score a conviction on a conspiracy charge.

“That is exactly what exists here … . If there is no dishonesty in the conspiracy case, there can be no dishonesty in the others …”Knight said.

“Of course criminal offenders are to be convicted … but the innocent must be protected. That’s the whole purpose of the justice system,” Knight continued.

He contended that what the prosecution was saying was that, once there is some kind of mistake, it must be ascribed to dishonesty and once it is ascribed to dishonesty it must be one or both of the two accused.

“That is not a platform on which to mount a case of dishonesty,” Knight said.

He alleged that no one at Petrojam, in carrying out their duties, remotely suggested there was dishonesty.

Knight said the allegations were pure inductive reasoning and not based on facts.

“There is no circumstantial evidence that there was dishonesty, none,” he said during his no-case submission.

The sums, during the period in question, December 2016 and May 2018, were allegedly paid over to the accused. However, Knight contended that the cheques were not paid under a cloud of suspicion as the prosecution has alleged.

“The prosecution has not brought in evidence and did not serve on us one document from internal audit which has the responsibility to ensure that procedures are followed. If there was this complaint or concern, why wasn’t internal audit asked, ”Knight queried.

Knight said the whole concept of conspiracy that is brought before the court is not based upon complaints from within Petrojam.

“It’s not based upon inspection from their organisation but simply by some lawyer interpreting what is there and coming to a conclusion,” Knight told the court.

In 2018, Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis released a damning 113-page report on the operations of the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica (PCJ) and its affiliate, the state-owned oil refinery, Petrojam, pointing to “explicit acts of nepotism” at both entities and deficiencies in human resource recruitment and management practices.

The accused men were subsequently charged after guidance from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).

The senior Samuels completed his no-case submission for Singh prior to the start of Knight’s submission.

Knight is to continue his no-case submission today, following which Carolyn Haye, KC, is expected to deliver her reponse for the Crown.