Accused admitted taking money, says witness

by Tameisha Sobers

A lawyer today said he prepared a promissory note which Ian Anderson Hunte signed, promising to repay “every red cent”
of money taken from Evan Mandeville Associates Limited.

This was the evidence of attorney Michael Griffith as he took the witness stand in Hunte’s trial in the No. 2 Supreme Court.

The 57-year-old Hunte of No. 2 Halcyon Heights, St James, is charged with stealing $104,785 belonging to the company between January 25, 2004 and July 11, 2005.

He is also accused of engaging in money laundering during that time.

The matter is being heard by Justice Randall Worrell while the prosecution is led by Senior Crown Counsel Olivia
Davis and Ralph Thorne Q.C. appears for the defence.

Griffith said during consultations back in 2005 (he later said it was 2006 when questioned by Thorne) with chairman Janet Mandeville, one of his clients and financial controller John Fields regarding theft of money from the company, he advised them that they could report the matter to police.

However, this action was not taken “at the point in time”.

In August of 2006, Griffith said he had a meeting with Fields, Mandeville and Hunte. Here he said Hunte “readily admitted to taking the money”.

“He said ‘I admit I took the money but would like the opportunity to repay every red cent’,” Griffith recalled.

The lawyer said Hunte apologised and stated he took the money because of some illness in the family.

He offered to repay the money by December 31, 2006 and stated he would sell land in order to make the repayment.

Griffith said he then prepared the note which he signed as a witness; Fields, Mandeville and Hunte also signed. He indicated that the repayment figure of $321,000 was not disputed by Hunte.

The document, according to Griffith, was prepared to acknowledge the money taken from the company.

Thorne, during cross-examination, questioned the preparation of the promissory note and asked if Griffith had given ‘priority to convenience over sustenance’.

The Queen’s Counsel asked if Griffith knew that banks prepared such notes with their clients to restore situations of civil debts.

He referred to Griffith’s evidence where at the first meeting, before the promissory note, he recommended reporting the matter to police.

“Were you offering a civil solution for this matter?” Thorne asked.

Griffith said he was preparing the note in relation to what Hunte was requesting.

Thorne asked if he felt it was appropriate to prepare a promissory note.

“You are aware that a lawyer is not supposed to do anything which suppresses a criminal investigation?…And a lawyer should not exercise his influence to vary the course of what ought to be criminal prosecution by drawing up a document called a promissory note to resolve what you have said was a criminal offence?”

Griffith, in response said: “In addition to it being a criminal offence it is also civil debt that was due by Hunte.”

“You are saying theft equates a civil indebtedness?” Thorne asked.

He also questioned whether the attorney was aware of the figure stated in the charge.

“Have you given evidence that, that $321,000 includes the figure that is presently before this judge and jury?” Thorne asked.

Griffith said “no”, adding that he was surprised when he saw the figure of $104,785 in the charge in the newspaper.

The case continues on Monday at 9:30 a.m. (TS)