Court rejects claims of nullity in Reid-CMU fraud case; trial to proceed
Published:Tuesday | November 18, 2025 | 12:09 AMTanesha Mundle/Staff Reporter
Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell yesterday cleared the way for the continuation of the long-running multimillion-dollar fraud trial involving former Education Minister Ruel Reid and his co-accused, after dismissing two major objections from the defence, including a claim that the proceedings were a nullity.
The primary objection, led by attorney Hugh Wildman, focused on alleged procedural errors in the indictment. Wildman argued that 14 summary offences listed on the indictment had no corresponding “information number one”, a defect the prosecution conceded.
Representing former Caribbean Maritime University (CMU) head Professor Fritz Pinnock, Wildman contended that the reference to a non-existent information rendered the indictment void. His position was echoed by other defence attorneys, including Oswest Senior-Smith, who urged the court to withdraw the charges against co-accused Kim Brown-Lawrence on that basis.
Judge Burrell firmly rejected those arguments.
While agreeing that the Crown “could have been more precise” in drafting the indictment, she ruled that the missing information numbers for special statutory summary offences did not invalidate the indictment or stop the trial.
“Inclusion of those offences, while procedurally imperfect, is not fatal to the validity of the indictment,” she ruled, warning that accepting the defence’s position would “lead to an absurdity”.
In her reasoning, Judge Burrell cited the legislative framework governing parish courts, noting that the 2018 amendment to Section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act allows summary and indictable offences to be tried together once statutory conditions are satisfied. She explained that these special summary offences “remain summary in nature” even when listed on an indictment for joint trial, and that the absence of related amendments to the Parish Courts Act does not create any legal defect.
She concluded that the defence objections had no foundation.
“The trial shall proceed accordingly,” she ordered.
OBJECTIONS DISMISSED
In a separate ruling, Judge Burrell dismissed objections to the admissibility of a redacted document and a photograph used to identify a now-deceased witness whose statement the Crown seeks to admit under Section 31D of the Evidence Act. She held that the document was relevant, did not breach the hearsay rule, and that even if the photograph was improperly obtained, Jamaican common law allows the admission of unlawfully gathered evidence when it is relevant
She added that while the Financial Investigations Division Act imposes confidentiality obligations, it does not create an exclusionary rule that overrides common-law principles.
After the ruling, the third witness – a detective sergeant from the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency – completed her evidence. She identified the deceased witness, Reid’s driver, and confirmed collecting his statement in April 2019 without offering inducements or making threats.
She also identified the statement that she had collected.
The prosecution later advanced submissions in a voir dire, which will determine whether the statement can be admitted. The trial resumes today with the judge’s ruling on that application.
Reid, his wife Sharen, their daughter Sharelle, Pinnock, and JLP Councillor Brown-Lawrence are accused of participating in a scheme to defraud the education ministry and the CMU of more than $25 million.