High Court denies attorney access to funds to pay legal fees

Accused attorney Dawn Satterswaite and her real-estate husband Terrence Allen, who are facing money-laundering charges, have lost their bid in the Court of Appeal to have access to more funds from their frozen assets to cover their legal expenses.

The high court, in its judgment which was published on Tuesday, upheld the refusal of two Supreme Court judges to grant applications sought to vary a restraint order made on January 16, 2014, pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) for the couple to be provided with reasonable legal expense.

The high court has, however, reinstated a March 2014 order for the release of Allen’s pension emoluments from the Bank of Nova Scotia Jamaica Limited from the Restraint Order.

Satterswaite, Allen, and three others – Paulette Higgins, Janet Ramsey and Ann-Marie Cleary – were arrested and charged by the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Task Force for allegedly laundering hundreds of millions of dollars for confessed Jamaican drug dealer Andrew Hamilton.

In the wake of the allegation and pending trial, the Kingston attorney and her husband Terrence Allen’s assets were restrained in 2014 after the Supreme Court granted several orders requested by the Assets Recovery Agency that placed a freeze on some of Satterswaite’s assets, including accounts held at a number of financial institutions.

But although the couple assets were frozen, they had successfully applied for a variation which resulted in them being provided with a set amount of funds from their frozen account to cover their cost of living and for Satterswaite to operate her law practice.

However, they were not satisfied with the amount and sought to access more funds. Consequently, Satterswaite had applied twice to vary the order; however, when the second order was refused, she sought appealed the decision. Her husband had also applied for a similar variation of the order.

To support their application, Satterswaite and her husband had contended that the section of the Proceeds of Crime Act used to restrain their assets was unconstitutional and should not have been made in the first place.

In addition, they had argued that a person’s funds or assets cannot be restrained by any court in a manner that would prevent the individual from meeting their reasonable legal expenses, especially since access to legal assistance is a fundamental right afforded by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to anyone charged with a criminal offence.

CRIME ACT

Consequently, the high court judges in their ruling have declared that Section 33(4) and (5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act do not permit Satterswaite and Allen access to funds restrained in pursuant to those sections.

“Any declaration that those sections are unconstitutional should be pursued by way of motion/claim, under Section 19 of the Constitution of Jamaica, for constitutional redress,” it said.

Further, the high court judges have indicated that the appellants are entitled to defend themselves in person or through legal representation of their own choosing, or through legal aid assistance.

In the meantime, the prosecutors in the criminal matter against the accused have revealed that over an 11-year period between 1998 and 2009, 30 high-value properties were bought for Hamilton.

The prosecutors said the properties were later registered to Hamilton’s relatives as well as close family friends.

The prosecutors further alleged that the properties were purchased by Satterswaite for a total of $500 million.