The State has filed an appeal against a High Court decision that quashed a magistrate’s order sending former CLICO Life Insurance Company chairman Leroy Parris to stand trial for the alleged theft of $3.3 million from the now-defunct insurance company.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
Among its arguments is that an injunction cannot be made against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The appeal, which was recently lodged, challenges the oral ruling by Justice Michelle Weekes in the No. 8 Supreme Court on September 23, 2026.
Justice Weekes ruled in favour of an application for judicial review brought by Parris, who was represented by Hal Gollop KC and Neil Marshall. Magistrate Manila Renee, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) were named as respondents in the original suit and are now the appellants.
The judge granted an order of certiorari quashing Magistrate Renee’s decision to commit Parris to stand trial, and issued a prohibition barring the magistrate from transmitting any documents in the case to the DPP or the Registrar of the Supreme Court.
She also granted an injunction restraining the DPP from proffering a bill of indictment against Parris arising out of the inquiry, and declared that the magistrate’s finding – that there was sufficient evidence to put Parris on trial in the High Court – was “vitiated on the grounds that the first respondent acted in a manner that is unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice”.
King’s Counsel Roger Forde, who is representing the appellants, told the Saturday Sun that an injunction cannot be made against the DPP.
“It must be emphasised that the person who has done the investigation so far is the Commissioner of Police. So the process is, the Commissioner of Police will do an investigation and make the charges. The charges will then go before an examining magistrate and if the magistrate thinks they are adequate, they are sent then to the DPP,” Forde said.
“The DPP has an independent role, he doesn’t have to agree . . . He makes his own decision on the Constitution and unless you can prove mala fides that, you know, there’s some wickedness or some whatever, then you cannot get an injunction against the DPP.”
‘No indictment as yet’
Forde stressed that the DPP has not yet decided whether to indict Parris in the High Court.
“Up to now the DPP has not proffered a bill of indictment against Mr Parris – it has not reached that stage yet. That is what they’re trying to preempt. The DPP has an independent role under the Constitution.”
He expressed the belief that the appeal will be successful.
The Notice of Appeal sets out four grounds on which the State is challenging Justice Weekes’ ruling.
The first ground argues that the judge misdirected herself in granting judicial review because Parris had an alternative remedy – an appeal under Section 238 of the Magistrate’s Court Act, Cap 116A – which he failed to pursue or show special circumstances to justify bypassing.
Another ground argues that the judge failed to consider that one of the offences Parris was charged with – money laundering contrary to Section 3(1) (b) of the Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (Prevention and Control) Act,
Chapter 129 – does not require proof of ownership of the money.
The fourth and most contentious ground attacks the injunction against the DPP, citing Section 79 of the Constitution, which establishes the DPP’s office and grants the power to institute, take over and discontinue criminal proceedings. That section also provides that the DPP “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority”.
The legal team further argue that Parris had no cause of action against the DPP, no right to be protected by an injunction, and no constitutional right not to be prosecuted for the alleged charges and that the DPP had not made any decision to prosecute him to which judicial review could apply.
A separate application has also been filed to discharge the injunction against the DPP pending the appeal, on the basis that the judge has not yet provided a written decision setting out her reasons.
That application argues the judicial review was solely about the magistrate’s decision, not the DPP’s, and that no bill of indictment has been proffered. It states that the interests of justice favour the discharge of the injunction.
The case stems from allegations that Parris, while chairman of CLICO Life Insurance Company, conspired with others to steal $3.3 million from the company, which collapsed in 2011 along with its parent CL Financial, triggering one of the largest financial scandals in the region’s history. ( MB)