By RICARDO WELLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
rwells@tribunemedia.net
PROSECUTORS appearing in the Court of Appeal in the case of former Urban Renewal Deputy Director Michelle Reckley and four of her co-accused yesterday argued that a magistrate “erred in law” in his decision to vacate all of the money laundering charges levied against the group.
In submissions presented by Director of Public Prosecution Garvin Gaskins, he insisted the respondents were properly charged under the summary provision of Section 45 of the Proceeds of Crime Act.
He further argued that the suggestion that the statute of limitations on the charges had expired was misguided, claiming that Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes the case that such offence can be pursued at the magistrate level.
In March, Magistrate Ambrose Armbrister tossed out all of the money laundering charges brought against Reckley and her co-accused Christopher Symonette, 57, Stefanie Collie, 28, Kylon Vincent, 26, and James Wildgoose.
In his ruling Magistrate Armbrister cited that his court did not have the jurisdiction to hear a case related to the charges because they were not brought within six months of having occurred.
He said the court’s pursuit of those charges would represent an abuse of process.
However, in his submissions yesterday, Mr Gaskins argued that Magistrate Armbrister failed to find that the Interpretation and General Clauses Act allows charges to be brought under the repealed Proceeds of Crime Act, by virtue of the various occurrences stipulated in Subsections C and E of the former.
Conversely, he said Magistrate Armbrister determined that, among other things, the provision under the Interpretation and General Clauses Act was not inclusive of police investigations, but that the term investigation used during a hearing in his court, strictly referred to an investigation by the court during a legal proceeding prior to the enactment of the new legislation, and not an investigation by the police.
To that end, he asserted that Magistrate Armbrister’s determination was misconceived.
With regard to the statute of limitation period, Mr Gaskins further submitted that the present offences in respect of money laundering do not fall within the six months statutory limitation period, as determined by Magistrate Armbrister.
As such, he said having regard to the legislation governing this issue, his team was of the view that the law clearly stipulates that an “indictable offence” is not subject to a statutory time limitation.
He further submitted that the offence of money laundering is, in fact, an indictable offence which may also be duly tried in the Magistrate’s Court, on the election of the Crown, as permitted by section 58(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code as amended in 2017.
Following Mr Gaskins submissions the matter was adjourned to May 7 to grant the various attorneys for the respondents in the case to have an opportunity to review the written decision submitted by Magistrate Ambrose, as all were not privy to it in the lead up to yesterday’s proceedings.
Reckley, 50, now faces only 19 charges related to fraud, corruption and conspiracy. She is accused of extorting $71,062.18 and allegedly engaging in corrupt deals valued at $230,000.
It is alleged that Reckley and Hall between Monday, December 5, 2016 and Monday, April 24, 2017 conspired to defraud the government. It is further alleged that the pair, between Friday, December 9, 2016 and Tuesday, April 25, 2017 defrauded the government of $1,255,637.83 by way of nine cheques.
The cheques were payments made out to Hall’s Distinctive Builders enterprise for contracts given under the government’s Small Homes Repair programme in the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew by means of false pretences, it is alleged.
Reckley is further accused of converting the sums of $30,000 on or about Wednesday, November 30, 2016; $11,062.18 on or about Friday, December 30, 2016; and $200,000 on or about Monday, March 20, 2017, to conceal that they were the proceeds of her criminal conduct.
She is also facing three extortion charges related to her receipt of $11,062.18 on or about Friday, December 30, 2016 from Symonette; $30,000 on or about Wednesday, November 30, 2016 and another $30,000 on or about March 20, 2017 from Hall.
As it relates to her two charges of corrupt transactions with agents, Reckley stands accused of accepting $200,000 on or about Monday, March 20, and $30,000 on or about Friday, November 30, 2016, as a reward for assisting Hall in obtaining a home repair contract and a contract for the repair of the Bartlette Hill Primary School respectively.
Conversely, the remaining charges against James Hall, 49, and Joseph Lightbourne, 40, will be pursued.
Hall now faces 11 charges in total, inclusive of two counts of corrupt transactions with agents, for his alleged payments to Reckley.
As for Lightbourn, his five counts of abetment to fraud will stand.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.