McAllister Hanchell says publication of the finding that the payment of US$500,000.00 in relation to the Joe Grant Cay was bribery, can only be regarded as a deliberate attempt by the Government to poison the well of potential jurors
Former PNP government Minister McAllister Hanchell has accused the interim government of deliberately trying to poison the minds of any potential jurors by linking him and former Premier Michael Missick to bribery charges as a result of a $500,000.00 donation from Dr Cem Kinay.
Hanchell’s accusation comes on the heels of a government press release Wednesday which noted TCIG’s success in obtaining the recovery of Joe Grant Cay, following proceedings brought against the Star Platinum companies, controlled by Dr Cem Kinay.
That press release recorded a judgment that was handed down by the Court on Tuesday 14 June, in connection with the political donation of $500,000 made by Dr Kinay to Mr. Misick on 9 January 2007, where the Judge found there to be a very strong probability that the money was paid as a bribe in order to ensure that the Defendant companies obtained the benefit of the proposed development.
The Judge also found (paragraph 37): “The grant of development rights and the sale of the hotel land was grossly undervalued and the lease of the other land at substantially less than the market value, were all made at the instigation of Mr. Misick. The values, according to the judgement, were approved by Cabinet as the result of the suppression of evidence of what was at the very least a respectable alternative opinion from the Government’s own valuer, as to the true values. He said no satisfactory explanation was put forward for not reporting Mr Hoza’s valuations to cabinet; or for the payment of the $500,000 to Michael Misick. The Judge said not only did the Defendants get the development; they got it cheaply. According to the judgment, there is a very strong probability that Michael Misick, with the help of McAllister Hanchell secured the grant of these benefits to the Defendants as a result of this inducement.”
The release went on to note that proceedings were issued in July 2010 following the identification by the Commission of Inquiry of Joe Grant Cay in its report, and the appointment of the Civil Recovery team. After initially defending the proceedings and filing a full Defence, it said the Defendant companies then defaulted on Court orders.
As a result, the Government applied for judgment, and the Government opted for a trial of the case, which was held on 6 June at the Court in Providenciales. The Defendants did not attend or give evidence at that trial. The Judge noted that the Government “could not simply rely on what was pleaded, but had to show what could be proven by evidence or admissions.
“I emphasise that this judgment should not be treated as a conclusive finding that any individual has acted corruptly. Nobody should be declared corrupt if he has not had the opportunity to defend himself at trial, and that has not happened in this case. The decision has been reached without any active participation by the Defendants, and without hearing from those alleged to have acted corruptly. That was because the Defendants chose to disregard court orders and to absent themselves from the hearing. No oral evidence was given, and there was no cross examination. Had this occurred the outcome could have been different. Conclusions which have been drawn are for the purpose of this case only,” observed the Judge.
The Court subsequently ordered the return of the whole of Joe Grant Cay to the Government, subject only to a charge in favour of Temple Trust, which remains on one parcel of the land. The Court has also given judgment for damages to be assessed, and has awarded the Government the costs of the action.
Attorney General, Huw Shepheard described this as the first of the major civil claims arising out of the Commission’s work to conclude. “We are pleased that the outcome is a successful one for the Government and the Civil Recovery team of EAPD and Chambers. Joe Grant Cay will now be rightfully returned to the Government’s ownership,” commented the AG.
But Mr. McAllister Hanchell in a statement to RTC News, said he read with interest the Government’s Press Release regarding the court’s decision in the Joe Grant’s case entitled “TCIG successful in recovering Joe Grant land: first judgment in major civil recovery case.”
Said Mr. Hanchell, “neither Michael Misick nor myself are defendants in those proceedings. No one gave evidence and the only party represented, was the Government. Dr. Kinay could not afford to be represented because he was prevented by a previous Court Order from spending money on legal representation to defend himself. His lawyers had to come off the record.
Hanchell said the publication of the finding that the payment of US$500,000.00 was bribery, can only be regarded as a deliberate attempt by the Government to poison the well of potential jurors, so that the SIPT (the Special Investigation and Prosecution Team), can be in a position to object to trial by jury.
“The strategy is clear. Today it may be Mike or me. Tomorrow, it can be any citizen of this country. You have been warned,” Mr. Hanchell said.
