One year after the trial into the 2009 multi million dollar Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) fraud case started, the prosecution last Monday asked for it to be aborted citing irregularities but according to the defence this is an attempt to correct “enormous defects” in the evidence.
Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos who was appointed special prosecutor earlier this year, based his arguments on the fact that the Administration of Justice Act was applied to four indictable matters although one of the defendants has never been arrested; allowing a trial to commence.
On December 22, 2009, Gregory Alistair Ewan Barnes and Garfield Pearson were jointly charged with four counts of embezzlement. On that occasion only Pearson, a resident of Lot 3702 Buttercup Place, South Ruimveldt Park, appeared before the then Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson.
Pearson was granted $1 million bail.
The matter is now being heard by Magistrate Sueanna Lovell at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court.
When the matter was called, Pearson was present.
De Santos indicated that when he first entered appearance in the matter he did say that he did not have enough time to familiarize himself with the case and had asked for an appropriate date in order to do so.
According to the senior counsel he had an opportunity to do so over the weekend and in looking at one particular case jacket realized that Barnes had never appeared; even in the initial stages when the matter was indictable.
He added that “It seems that a summary trial was never granted to Barnes… This is an irregularity to continue to hear the matter”, he said adding that more so the case jacket reflected that an arrest warrant had been issued for the defendant.
De Santos submitted to the court that he has been unable to ascertain what efforts are being made “to have him brought back to this country”.
According to De Santos there ought to be a new charge in which Pearson alone is the defendant. The special prosecutor stressed that what has so far happened could be deemed unethical.
“If you are so persuaded then the trial of Pearson ought to be aborted”, he said noting that the prosecution would then seek advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Attorney-at-law Ronald Burch-Smith who is representing Pearson told the court that the prosecution’s submissions had left him confused, later explaining that it was the prosecution that asked for a trial. It was they who applied for the arrest warrant and the recalling of same in July 2010 just before evidence was first taken in the matter, he added.
The matter was initially handled by a police prosecutor before De Santos took over.
“What the prosecution is trying to do is what they couldn’t get which is a second chance to correct enormous defects in the evidence”, Burch-Smith said adding that with respect to his client the AJA was properly applied.
He said that the prosecutor’s submissions are attempts to mislead the court and have the court “go back on an earlier ruling on April 28 and 29 that the matters must proceed”.
He said that he disagreed that there are irregularities that would affect his client’s trial stressing that the case must proceed.
The magistrate later said that she would prefer to seek proper advice before making a ruling.
She then asked both sides to submit their arguments in writing. The prosecution will have to submit its arguments within ten days while the defence would have ten days to respond.
The matter was adjourned to June 6 for report.
Prosecutor Stephen Telford had stated that between January 2008 and October 2009, Barnes had been employed as a cashier and Pearson as a systems engineer at GRA.
He said that both men had received in excess of $3 million from taxpayers and had issued receipts to these persons. He alleged that before balancing off the accounts at the end of the day Pearson had deleted the transactions from the computer system but had replaced them to facilitate the removal of goods and after this was done had again removed the transaction from the computer system.
The prosecutor contended that on October 22, 2009, Barnes was caught with over $1 million in his possession and had later contacted Pearson who replaced the transaction in the computer system.
The prosecutor went on to say that a forensic auditor was retained by the company who showed that the duo acted together to commit the fraud.
Burch-Smith in his bail application had said that on November 5, 2009, a Criminal Investigation Department officer met and informed his client that he was being charged with the offences. He stated that the police had based the matter on the friendship that Pearson and Barnes shared, and added that his client should not have to face the consequences for an offence committed by another because he had some sort of affiliation with that person.
The attorney had noted that his client worked at the GRA Charlotte Street branch while Barnes worked at the Main Street branch and that over 100 persons had access to the main computer system in the company.
The forensic auditor and at least three persons have already testified in the matter.
