Former Premier Mike Misick, McAllister Hanchell, Chal Misick lose bid to have trial by jury; judge says fair trial is possible

Former Premier Michael Misick, his brother Thomas “Chal” Misick and former government minister McAllister “Piper” Hanchell, have lost their bid to have their cases tried by a jury.

They also lost a constitutional motion and abuse of process application when they appeared before Mr.Justice Rajendra Narine, in the Supreme Court this week.

In dismissing the application to have a trial by a jury, Judge Narine, a native of Trinidad and Tobago, and former judge of the Barbados Court of Appeal, said he was satisfied that the interests of justice require that this should proceed without a jury (judge only) having regard to the complexity of the case.

The case will commence on December 2, 2024 until December 19, then resume on January 6, 2025.

The judge noted that it will be a complex trial involving numerous financial transactions and the movement of money over international borders and voluminous documentary evidence, adding that the trial is likely to take several months, possibly a year.

The judge also noted that there is the difficulty of retaining jurors and there is also the question of financial hardship. In addition, he said there is also the likelihood of pre-trial publicity because the case featured heavily in the media in this small jurisdiction and it would be difficult to find jurors who have no preconceived notions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

In relation to the constitutional motion, he said it must be dismissed because there’s an alternative remedy in common law to seek a permanent stay.

In dismissing the abuse of process applications, Judge Narine said he was not satisfied, on the balance of the probabilities, that the two Misicks and Hanchell have suffered such serious prejudice that a fair trial cannot be held. He noted that whatever prejudice they may suffer from the passage of time can be remedied within the trial.

In summary, the judge said he was not satisfied that it would be unfair to try them or that a stay is necessary to protect the integrity of the criminal justice; adding that there is no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, or impropriety.

The three defendants are charged with bribery, conspiracy to defraud and concealing or disguising the proceeds of criminal conduct.

Senior Counsel Gilbert Peterson, Jamal Misick and Adrian Kayne are representing Michael Misick; while King’s Counsel Jerome Lynch, Selvyn Hawkins and Peter Melleney are defending McAllister Hanchell and King’s Counsel Malcolm Bishop, Jamal Misick and Hugh Evans are the lawyers for Thomas Misick. King’s Counsel Andrew Mitchell, Quinn Hawkins and Kate Duncan are the prosecutors.