CAD: Judge had no authority to probe Trade Winds-NEPA secret deal
Published:Monday | February 3, 2025 | 5:10 PMJovan Johnson - Senior Staff Reporter
The judge who handled the oil spill case involving Trade Winds Citrus Limited and the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) did not have the authority to review a secret mediation deal that ended the case, according to the Court Administration Division (CAD).
“The judge did not have the authority to examine the proposed mediation agreement,” the CAD told The Sunday Gleaner, referring to the deal, which sparked public outrage after a St Catherine Parish Court judge dismissed the criminal case on November 27, 2024, following NEPA’s disclosure of a confidential settlement.
The CAD, which provides administrative services for the judiciary, said the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA), through its technical and administrative arm, the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), entered into mediation on October 2, 2024, and reached an agreement.
“They agreed that the mediation agreement should be confidential and further agreed that they would prevent disclosure to third parties,” CAD said in response to Sunday Gleaner questions.
“In these circumstances, it is not that the judge’s jurisdiction is ousted; the judge had a duty to respect the confidentiality of the mediation agreement reached between the parties. This also encourages parties to take part in the mediation process,” it further explained.
The judge, Yvette Wentworth-Miller, had reportedly expressed shock after the NEPA attorney advised her of the deal.
The decision to discontinue the prosecution was widely criticised, leading to the resignation of NRCA Chairman Weldon Maddan.
Matthew Samuda, minister without portfolio with responsibility for environment matters, condemned the non-disclosure clause in the pact, stating it was not warranted and that the NRCA board failed to uphold “the required standards of transparency”.
The settlement, which was later made public, revealed that NRCA agreed to release Trade Winds from any future lawsuits related to the oil spill. Additionally, it was noted that Trade Winds had spent more on remedial work than the value of the potential fine. The prescribed fines for breaches of environmental laws have since been increased.
Attorney Marcus Goffe, representing a group of over 200 fisherfolk and residents who rely on the river for their livelihood, criticised the deal, calling it “worse than anticipated”. Goffe claimed the NRCA acted against the interests of Jamaicans when it discontinued the prosecution.
Trade Winds, a major employer in the parish and widely known for its flagship Tru-Juice brand, had faced possible reputational damage if prosecuted.
ROLE OF CLERK
The case has also raised questions about the clerk of court’s role, as clerks lead most prosecutions at the parish court. Concerns were raised about whether the clerk should have seen the mediation deal.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) had granted NEPA permission to prosecute Trade Winds under the Wildlife Protection Act for the oil spill in December 2023. However, it was revealed that NEPA’s legal team sought the DPP’s advice but discontinued the case before receiving feedback.
The CAD explained that in cases involving mediation agreements with confidentiality clauses, the clerk of court has no authority beyond presenting the agreement to the judge, whose role is also limited to enforcing the terms without delving into its contents. However, if the agreement is not confidential, the judge may examine its provisions to determine whether it serves the interests of justice before issuing a formal order.
By contrast, plea bargains require a more active judicial role and a judge is not obligated to accept such a deal at face value and may intervene if the facts do not support the charge. The CAD referenced the 2023 case of Austin Richards and Oniek Williams, in which the Court of Appeal ruled that despite an offender pleading guilty, the judge must ensure that the plea is appropriate, given the available evidence.
Meanwhile, Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn declined to say whether she agreed with the CAD’s position.
“I am currently reviewing the matter, and I deem it to be prudent to refrain from making any further comment or dissent,” she told The Sunday Gleaner.
However, Llewellyn confirmed that her office has taken over the prosecution of environmental breach cases and assigned a senior prosecutor to guide NEPA’s legal team.
“We have had productive discussions with the managing director and the legal team at NEPA,” she said, adding that training on prosecutorial best practices is planned.