Reid and Pinnock’s Cases Met With More Delays

CVM Live understands that the court matter concerning Former Education Minister Ruel Reid and several co accused regarding alleged corruption at the education ministry could likely not go to trial this year. This after several appeals for judicial reviews resulting in continued delays. The embattled Former Education Minister Ruel Reid and president of the Caribbean Maritime University, Professor Fritz Pinnock may likely not face the courts for a trial regarding alleged corruption anytime this year.

This as it’s understood myriad applications for judicial reviews have been filed by Reid and Pinnock‘s legal team that could see continued delays in the matter. The FID represented by Attorneys Richard Small and Shawn Steadman Wilkinson on Monday received one of two victories following their submission of three applications. 

In the first application the fid sought to be joined as an interested party in a judicial review and Puisne Judge, Andrea Pettigrew Collins, granted that application. However, the second and third, sought to revoke Justice Daye’s decision in 2021 to stay the proceedings in the parish court or alternatively, amend what justice day had done and only prevent the trial going ahead but to permit other preparatory steps by the prosecution to continue. 

Justice Pettigrew Collins made an order that Pinnock and Reid were granted cost to be paid to the fid, and similarly that the fid was granted cost on the same terms. This means the judicial review proceedings will continue, the fid will be an interested party, and now requires the claimants Reid and Pinnock’s legal team headed by Attorney Hugh Wildman to serve them the necessary documents so they may participate in the judicial review proceedings.

Pinnock and Reid had applied to Parish Court Judge Chester Crooks to dismiss the charges. That was before it was established that crooks needed to recuse himself from the matter noting a conflict of interest. Justice crooks heard submissions from both sides and decided to not dismiss the charges, allowing the matter to proceed before the parish court. The claimants have however applied to the Supreme Court to review what justice crooks ruled on, arising from judicial reviews.