A Judicial Review of Chief Parish Court Judge Chester Crooks's decision to recuse himself from the trial after ruling that the multimillion-dollar fraud case against former Minister of Education Ruel Reid and Caribbean Maritime University President Fitz Pinnock should be tried, will continue today (Tuesday).
The review, which began Monday in the Supreme Court, was allowed after Justice Cresencia Brown Beckford rejected a strike-out application by attorney Lisa White who is representing Judge Crooks.
Miss White's arguments were endorsed by the Financial Investigations Division's lawyer, Shawn Steadman.
The FID is an interested party in the claim.
Ms White, during her application, argued that Justice Crooks was acting within the remit of his jurisdiction.
She said, given the nature of the application, the option would have been open to the claimants to renew their application before another judge in the parish court.
Ms White submitted that there was no formal order from the judge for the court to consider and that the defendants in their affidavit did not state what the conflict of interest was or how it has prejudiced their case.
She argued that the matter was an academic exercise.
But, Justice Brown Beckford ruled against the application while indicating that she would give her reasons later in writing.
Mr Reid and Mr Pinnock are contending that Justice Crooks should not have ruled in the matter, as he had admitted to a conflict of interest. They are seeking the court's power to quash his ruling.
It was revealed that the conflict was in relation to the judge's attendance at Munro College while Reid was head boy there.
Following Justice Brown Beckford's ruling, Hugh Wildman, the lawyer for Mr Pinnock and Mr Reid, argued that if Justice Crooks had ruled last February in his clients' favour, the matter would have ended.
He questioned whether Justice Crooks ruled against his clients out of fear of being criticized for knowing Ruel Reid.
