The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Court of Appeal has called for the “early trial” of a Bahamian attorney accused of theft and fraud relating to more than $1.6 million worth of real estate transactions, due to the delays caused by his “misconceived” actions.

Appeal Justice Stella Crane-Scott, in a September 2 verdict, dismissed Ralph Jan Ward’s argument that his constitutional rights to a fair trial over the seven Voluntary Bills of Indictment (VBI) filed against him had been breached.

Detailing the background to the ruling, Justice Crane-Scott said: “The allegations against him are that at various times prior to August 2007, he was retained by different clients to provide conveyancing services in miscellaneous transactions involving real estate situated in the Bahamas.

“Following complaints about the appellant’s failure to pay over monies received on account of the said transactions, police investigations were commenced and criminal charges ultimately laid against him.”

The Court of Appeal said the allegations against the Bahamian attorney involved sums of £500,000 and £350,000 which, based on yesterday’s exchange rates, translate into a collective $1.298 million.

He was also arraigned over smaller Bahamian dollar sums worth $55,100; $104,500; $52,250; $52,250; and $47,500. These totalled $311,600 and, combined with the UK pound sterling sums, take the funds involved to some $1.61 million.

Mr Ward was arraigned before various magistrates between 2008 and 2011 on seven counts of “stealing by reason of service” and the same number of “fraudulent breaches of trust” .

The Attorney General’s Office then issued the seven VBIs, each containing two counts, against him along with fiats under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Mr Ward was duly arraigned on the VBIs by Supreme Court Justice Vera Watkins during July 2011 and, by the end of that month, had pleaded ‘guilty’ to all counts against him.

The attorney was granted bail, with sentencing deferred to October 2011 to give Mr Ward a chance to “make restitution” to his various clients.

However, when he returned before Justice Watkins on December 5, 2011, Mr Ward’s attorney asked for the Supreme Court to grant leave to withdraw his 14 ‘guilty’ pleas issues in July.

This was granted, but Justice Watkins refused Mr Ward’s motion to stay the proceedings and his claim that his constitutional rights to a fait hearing had been violated.

Garvin Gaskin, representing the Attorney General’s Office, argued that the issues raised in the appeal - the interpretation and “true construction” of key sections of the Criminal Procedure Code - had already been dealt with by the Court of Appeal in previous rulings.

Murrio Ducille, acting for Mr Ward, “adamantly” disagreed, but Justice Crane-Scott sided with Mr Gaskin in her verdict.

“The court has spoken consistently on all these matters in its several decisions over the years, and we trust that this decision finally puts the matters to rest,” she said.

“In view of the delay which has thus far been occasioned by the appellant pursuing what can only be described as misconceived proceedings before the Supreme Court as well as on appeal, I would also direct that the seven VBIs proceed to an early trial before a judge and jury.”

Mr Ducille, on Mr Ward’s behalf, had argued that Justice Watkins was wrong to rule that the VBIs were valid, and that the prosecution could proceed in this fashion “even though the offences are electable and out of time”.

The Criminal Procedure Code’s section 258 allows the Attorney General to file a VBI against any person charged with “an indictable offence” in a magistrate’s court. The Code also sought to define “indictable offence” as something that, notwithstanding section 214, is “triable only on information”.

Mr Ducille used this to suggest that the offences with which Mr Ward was charged, all of which were listed in the Criminal Procedure Code’s Third Schedule, were not included in the definition ‘indictable offences’.

This meant the Criminal Procedure Code’s section 258 applied only to offences triable on information, Mr Ducille argued, not those that could be tried summarily.

Acknowledging that it was difficult to interpret Parliament’s intent, Justice Scott-Crane nevertheless backed the Supreme Court in finding that the VBIs issued against Mr Ward were valid.

She also found that Mr Ward had failed to produce evidence showing that the magistrates were “impotent to deal with the charges because they were laid out of time, meaning beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed in section 2013 of the Criminal Procedure Code”.

Mr Ducille had tried to argue that this meant Mr Ward had not been charged before the magistrate’s court when the VBIs were issued, thus making the latter invalid because proper procedures had not been followed.

Justice Scott-Crane also dismissed Mr Ward’s claims that his constitutional rights had been infringed, finding that the Attorney General’s fiats had instructed the magistrates that the case was not to proceed summarily.

And the VBIs had given Mr Ward the right to have the VBIs tried before a jury.