Freed Symbiote execs want DPP blocked from appealing judge’s ruling
THE FOUR executives of Symbiote Investments Limited – trading as CariCel – who were freed in June last year of alleged breaches of the Telecommunications Act, have filed an application to strike out an appeal by the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to overturn the judge’s decision.
Those freed were Symbiote CEO and director Lowell Lawrence; his wife, Minette Lawrence, company secretary; Natalie Neil, company director; and Livingston Hinds, principal shareholder and director of Xtrinet.
Senior Parish Judge Maxine Ellis quashed the indictment after upholding submissions by their attorneys-at-law for the case to be thrown out because there was no evidence against the defendants and the information brought against them was vexatious and an abuse of the process.
The judge, in dismissing the case in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court, had ordered the immediate return of all the equipment and apparatus seized.
DPP Paula Llewellyn said this week that a notice of appeal was filed but she could not go any further with the matter until the notes of evidence were received from the parish court.
The executives were charged in February 2020 with breaching the Telecommunications Act by broadcasting without a spectrum licence. They were each charged with one count of conspiracy to use the spectrum without a licence and five counts of use of spectrum without a licence.
Minette Lawrence explained yesterday that after the application had been filed last September to strike out the appeal, checks revealed at the time that the judge’s reasons for dismissing the case had not been not sent to the registry of the Court of Appeal. She said she had to take the necessary steps for the reasons to be submitted to the registry so that the application could be heard expeditiously.
The judge in her reasons outlined that in response to the submissions by the defence lawyers that the case should be dismissed, the prosecution had asked for time to prefer a new indictment, but the judge said to grant an adjournment was to afford t he prosecution another opportunity to “fix” the case.
“This matter has been before the court for two years, and at all material times, the DPP had conduct of the matter,” the judge said.
DISREGARD FOR DUTY
The judge said then that the defendants had steadfastly made similar applications since the matter first came before the court.
“The usual response the prosecution gives is to prefer a new indictment to cure the defects in the case. The prosecution has delayed disclosure and/or demonstrated a flagrant disregard for their duty and to so comply with court orders. I am aware that the court should stay the proceedings lightly. It is also very clear that the defendants should be afforded a fair trial in all the circumstances. It is my opinion that in the circumstances, the information ought not to have been laid and the proper course to adopt to correct the fundamental error is to stay the proceedings at the earliest opportunity,” the judge ruled.
The judge then refused the application by the prosecution to prefer a new indictment and quashed the indictment. An order for a stay of proceedings was granted, and the judge pointed out that “in the instant case where there is no evidence at all, the court ought to stay the proceedings as it is an abuse of the proceedings to permit such a trial”.
The defendants were discharged on all the information, and the judge ordered that all the equipment and apparatus seized pursuant to the Authority to Search of February 21, 2020, and March 2020 and other dates were to be returned forthwith.
Checks yesterday at the Court of Appeal Registry revealed that the parish court had sent some documents, including the judge’s reasons for freeing the defendants.
Commenting on the issue yesterday, Minette Lawrence said she was greatly relieved by the dismissal of the criminal proceedings after more than three years of protesting their innocence.
“The truth about CariCel is slowly coming to light, and I believe that the responsible parties will be held to account,” she said.
‘’This appeal by the DPP has delayed the return of the equipment, and because of it; the parish court has refused to give me the usual clearance letter available to persons who have been cleared of criminal charges. I am hopeful that the application to strike out the appeal will be heard without further delay and my family and I can get in with our lives,” she added.