The Canadian couple who had a US$5.5 million money laundering case discontinued against them in 2016 have failed in their bid to be added as defendants in the judicial review application brought against the Director of Public Prosecutions for dismissing the case.
On February 16, High Court Judge Margaret Reifer dismissed the application by husband and wife Barry and Barbara Dueck, stating that there was insufficient interest in the public law issue to make them a party to the proceedings.
The judicial review application has been brought by Jean Delangis and Robert Richardson, the two people from whom the Duecks were accused of stealing money.
Delangis and Richardson filed the application in November 2016 against the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to discontinue the criminal charges brought against the Duecks.
They are seeking a declaration that the decision or administrative act by the DPP to discontinue the charges against the Duecks was invalid or breached the principles of natural justice or was based on an error of law. They are also asking for an order quashing the decision and an order that the charges be relaid against the couple.
In their application to be added as defendants, the Duecks submitted that they were “directly affected parties” in the proceedings and that they would be directly affected and prejudiced should the decision of the DPP be set aside or quashed, since this would affect their liberty and their reputations.
They submitted that they should be joined so that the court could “resolve all the matters in dispute in these proceedings”.
However, after reviewing the joinder law and citing numerous cases, Justice Reifer dismissed the application with cost.
“These affidavits show clearly that the Duecks have an undeniable private and very personal interest in these proceedings, but is that sufficient to justify their inclusion in these judicial review proceedings?” the judge asked.
She also pointed out that the matter “raises issues of joinder of parties generally, but more specifically, it invites an examination of the principles applicable in determining the proper parties/locus standi and/or joinder in judicial review proceedings.
“There is no sufficient interest in the public law issue to make them a party but there may be sufficient reason for them to be heard at the discretion of the court,” the judge noted.
She added: “It is not the role of judicial review to protect private (personal) interests. Nor is it within the scope of judicial review proceedings to settle disputes of fact, allegations of fraud, et cetera between these parties. Had this been an application for joinder under Part 19 in a private law proceeding between the Duecks and the claimants the results would have been different.”
In addition, Justice Reifer submitted that the issue in the substantive judicial review proceeding was between the claimant and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and concerns the correctness of the decision of the DPP to discontinue the charges laid against the Deucks.
“Joining the applicants to this proceeding will not, without more, provide a useful contribution to its resolution”
The Duecks were represented by Barry Gale QC and Laura Harvey-Read. (MB)