Judge to decide whether ex‑CLICO boss must stand trial on theft charges

The fate of former CLICO Life Insurance Company chairman Leroy Parris is now in the hands of a High Court judge, who will decide whether he must stand trial on theft and conspiracy charges.

Justice Michelle Weekes on Friday reserved judgment in the matter, after hearing closing submissions from Parris’ attorney, Hal Gollop, KC and legal counsel for the State, Roger Forde, KC.

In 2023, Magistrate Manila Renee sought to commit the 79-year-old Parris to face a judge and jury for his alleged theft of more than $3 million from CLICO. But the former insurance executive applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the magistrate’s decision, while at the same time requesting an injunction to halt the indictment from proceeding.

Justice Weekes had granted the injunction, paving the way for a full hearing of Parris’ application for judicial review.

In the No. 8 Supreme Court on Friday, Gollop argued there were sufficient grounds for judicial review.

“How can you make a finding and did not read the statement [of former chief executive officer of CLICO Terrance Thornhill],” the King Counsel’s said, referring to the magistrate. “It is clear that she could not have addressed her mind to the statement before her [in which Thornhill said no money had gone missing from the company].”

“We submit that the process by which the learned trial magistrate came to her decision was grievously flawed . . . . We are asking [the court] to grant the orders sought and claim damages and costs,” Gollop added. “The court has it within its discretion to grant any other relief that it may deem just.”

Parris named Magistrate Renee, the Attorney General, and the Director of Public Prosecutions as respondents in his petition.

He is seeking an order of certiorari quashing the magistrate’s decision to commit him to stand trial, an order of prohibition preventing her from transmitting to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Registrar of the Supreme Court any copy of the prescribed documents in the matter, and an injunction restraining the DPP from proceeding with the indictment pending the outcome of the judicial review. .

He is also requesting a declaration that the magistrate acted unconstitutionally and in breach of the principles of natural justice; and that she failed to satisfy or observe conditions or procedures required by law.

But Forde argued that there is no provision in the law for an examining magistrate to consider the validity of the charges.

“The charges are before her. All her task is . . . is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to send the matter forward. It is not her duty to deal with the validity of any charges. The validity of the charges has to be made by the person who proffered the charges,” the King’s Counsel contended.

“The learned magistrate does not proffer any charges. So, if you want to have a declaration that the charges are invalid, that has to go against the police. You bring your judicial review against the Commissioner of Police, and you seek a declaration that the decision to proffer the charges was unreasonable, irrational and whatever.”

Forde argued that even if the magistrate had to determine the validity, she had stated that Justice Shona Griffith did not make a declaration that the charges were invalid.

“There was no appeal from the decision of Justice Griffith that the charges were not invalid,” he reasoned. “That is what the declaration sought, that the charges were invalid. The fact that the charges were read by the examining magistrate is sufficient evidence to show that there was no order, and no complaint preventing her from reading the charges.”

Forde also contended that there was no obligation by the magistrate to accept the evidence of the former CLICO CEO, Thornhill, or any other person as true.

“Mr Thornhill said that no money was stolen. Mr Thornhill was never cross-examined as to whether his statement was true or not. So, what my friend [Gollop] is simply saying, ‘Mr Thornhill says no money was missing, you should take it, although he has not been cross-examined’,” the attorney said.

Parris is accused of stealing $3.33 million from CLICO International Life Insurance Limited between December 1, 2008, and April 27, 2009. He is also charged with conspiracy to defraud CLICO by inducing the company to pay out the money to the law firm of Thompson and Associates.

Prosecutors allege that between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010, Parris was involved in a conspiracy to cheat the Commissioner of Inland Revenue by failing to submit tax returns or account for income taxes for the 2009 tax year. Between December 1, 2008 and April 27, 2009, Parris engaged in money laundering of $3.33 million, the prosecution claims.

The former insurance executive who was in court on Friday, has maintained his innocence throughout. He has been on $1.5 million bail since his first appearance before the District ‘A’ Magistrates’ Court in June 2020.

Neil Marshall is appearing alongside Gollop, while Forde is assisted by Edmund Hinkson, SC and Senior State Counsel Justin Nurse.

emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb

The post Judge to decide whether ex‑CLICO boss must stand trial on theft charges appeared first on Barbados Today.

Share the Post:

#LOUD

Music Submission

Fill out the form below, and we will be in touch shortly.
Contact Information
Upload & Submit