Judge denies lawyer bail, remands him pending sentencing for stealing client funds

Promises that he would not abscond while awaiting punishment for stealing and using well over half a million dollars of a client’s money, were not enough for attorney-at-law Ernest Winston Jackman to avoid going to Dodds prison on Tuesday.

Saying that his case involved “a significant breach of trust”, Madam Justice Pamela Beckles refused to allow him to be free pending sentencing and remanded him to the St Philip penal institution.

Jackman is expected to make his next appearance before the High Court on July 18.

After taking the morning to deliver the summation in the attorney’s theft and money laundering trial, Justice Beckles sent the jury out to deliberate on the evidence around 11:35 a.m. Just under an hour and a half later – around 12:55 p.m. – the nine jurors returned and the foreman informed the No. 5 Supreme Court that they had reached unanimous guilty verdicts on both counts.

There was no obvious reaction from the mask-wearing Jackman as he learned he was convicted of stealing $678 414.75 from HEJ Limited between June 23, 2006 and March 5, 2007, and engaging in money laundering by disposing of the sum between June 23, 2006 and October 18, 2011.

Following the verdict, Principal State Counsel Krystal Delaney submitted that a pre-sentencing report be done on the first-time offender and that his bail be revoked and he be remanded pending sentence.

The judge asked the newly convicted lawyer whether he had anything to say on the issue of his bail.

Jackman looked around the room and spoke to another attorney who was present before he addressed the court.

“First, I wish to express sincere apology to the court and to everyone in relation to this matter. I would prefer not to be remanded until the presentence report. I regret the circumstances, I regret my action and I do apologise,” he said.

John Huggins, who is the principal shareholder and managing director for HEJ Limited, had told the court that he built five townhouses, selling four of them and living in the other.

He said he only received money from Jackman, who represented him in the transactions, for three of the properties. The fourth, he said, was sold on August 6, 2006 for $745 000 and he eventually received $50 000 from Jackman after taking the matter before the Barbados Bar Association.

The 85-year-old complainant said the situation had “taken a great toll on my life”.

Just as he had claimed on previous occasions, Jackman told the court on Tuesday that he “tried . . . to do the right thing” before the matter had reached this far.

“. . . . As I indicated to the court, I was able to repay to the complainant a portion of the money that I had for him . . . . With a charge like this, the sources of income and stuff dried up, your ability to borrow and stuff like that disappears, and that is why it took the length of time. I thought that perhaps I could have resolved it by offering land and stuff like that when the opportunity presented itself, but as the court well understood that was not accepted,” the disgraced attorney said.

He maintained that he was not “indifferent” to the complainant’s situation.

“We all find ourselves in situations, that is why from the very beginning I tried to see if I could make some arrangements to have the matter resolved, and, of course, it did not work according to plan. But clearly, there was no intention on my part that the virtual complainant should not have gotten what was his,” Jackman said.

Pointing out that he had no previous convictions, the attorney added: “I have been granted bail before. I have not absconded. I have no intention of absconding, I take my responsibility seriously although what has happened is not right. I have no intention of absconding or going anywhere, have never tried or attempted in all this time to leave the court’s jurisdiction or not to attend court when necessary. I have always attended.”

“It is for these reasons I am asking the court if it could, in these circumstances, allow me to remain on bail until the matter comes up on the next occasion,” Jackman submitted.

However, Justice Beckles told the lawyer that the court must always be mindful of the precedent that is set, as matters such as his “touch and concern a significant breach of trust”.

“If there is one thing anyone can say about me is that I am quite consistent. I don’t care if [you are] black, white, pink, blue, old, young, I treat everybody the same. You’ve seen that persons who come before me for similar offences, when it reaches this stage where it is likely that there is going to be a custodial sentence, we do revoke bail and remand the person in custody and I don’t intend to change [that] position this afternoon,” she said.

Jackman is the second lawyer in two weeks to be convicted of theft and money laundering charges involving clients’ money.

On May 17, Norman Leroy Lynch was similarly convicted.

In the last three years, attorneys-at-law Vonda Pile and Cheraine Parris were also jailed in connection with stealing clients’ funds.
fernellawedderburn@barbadostoday.bb