‘Most unusual turn’
Defence receives new disclosures in Petrojam fraud case after lengthy push for discovery
ONE OF two pieces of evidence the defence had to wrestle from the prosecution in the Petrojam fraud matter was disclosed yesterday, days after they wrapped up a no-case submission, and weeks after the longrunning trial got under way.
Former Petrojam General Manager Floyd Grindley and former board chairman Dr Perceval Singh are on trial in relation to alleged fraudulent claims for overseas travel allowances amounting to more than US$70,000.
Things came to a standstill yesterday morning in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court, even after the parties were called to chambers by parish court Judge Maxine Ellis to discuss what The Gleaner understands was being described as ‘prosecutorial misconduct’.
One of the discoveries, the minutes of a board meeting held in St James on September 22, 2017 (rescheduled from September 8, 2017) was agreed to be tendered into evidence after talks. However, the other, an email trail agreed on, is to be disclosed at a later date.
The email trail is between Singh and Hilary Alexander, dated August 14, 2014, which forms part of Exhibit 17.
King’s Counsel (KC) KD Knight and attorney Bianca Samuels are representing Grindley, while senior attorney-at-law Bert Samuels and Matthew Hyatt are representing Singh.
Bert Samuels, while satisfied to finally start receiving full disclosure, took issue with the time the Crown was taking to fulfil its obligation in law.
“This case has taken the most unusual turn of my own 45-year career. We have had an application to amend an indictment this morning after an issue was raised by KC Knight. We’ve had all the counts amended after our no-case submission was put in and shared with the prosecution except for one count. All the other counts were amended after the prosecution saw our no-case submission.”
Samuels argued that, throughout the case, the defence has had to be fighting to get disclosure.
“We made a request of disclosure of a board meeting and disclosure of an entire email because what we got was a redacted email. I had to make an appeal to the prosecutor. She did not agree with me. I had to write to the director of public prosecutions’ (DPP) office and finally the DPP met with her and directed that the disclosure be given to us,” he said.
HAPPY FOR INTERVENTION
Samuels told journalists that he was very happy for the intervention of the DPP, which caused the minutes to show that his client was acting above board when he asked for a refund for a September 8 meeting because that meeting was adjourned until the 22nd of September.
“The prosecution in law has a duty to share evidence, even if it is for the benefit of an accused. It is the protocol of the DPP’s office that there must be disclosure of all material in the possession of the prosecutor. We shouldn’t have had to go to the DPP to get this. We begged in open court for the evidence and we didn’t get it,” Samuels said.
He said the issue of prosecutorial misconduct continues to be a live one in the case and was part of his no-case submission which, according to law, a trial judge can intervene.
“Unless we could have got the minutes which we begged for, there would have been no explanation why he made a claim for the 8th of September and was described by the prosecution as making fictitious claims… and acting fraudulently for a meeting he knew did not take place,” Samuels said.
He described the entire process as going backwards because his no-case submission was over and he needed the documents.
“This is when I am getting it. The judge has had to ask us to reopen my no-case submission, made last week, because we did not get what we wrote for, what we begged for, what we are entitled to in law,” Samuels said.
He said he hoped the defendants will be judged as having no case to answer when they return for the next sitting.
KC Carolyn Haye, who represents the Crown, advised the court of her intention to amend count 8 to count 12, replacing the word “director” with “officer”.
Ellis told the parties that the record would reflect that the evidence is agreed and that all that was left was for the documents to be added to the bundle of agreed evidence for consistency.
When asked by the judge how long they needed to present the new no-case submission, Knight, in jest, said the defence did not need more than a day to respond, before advising they would respond in writing.
The accused men had their bails extended until May 6 when the matter will again be heard.