Chief Magistrate Joyann Ferguson-Pratt defends integrity, insisting she does not know defendant
NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Chief Magistrate Joyann Ferguson-Pratt was moved to defend her integrity yesterday in the face of a recusal application that accused her of bias in the fraud case involving former Urban Renewal Deputy Director Michelle Reckley and five other defendants.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) filed an application to have the chief magistrate recused after reviewing a detention record related to Reckley, according to Eucal Bonaby, who appeared for the DPP.
According to Bonaby, a sworn affidavit exhibited a detention record that claimed the chief magistrate and a senior officer allegedly visited Reckley in a cell in the precincts of the Magistrate’s Court on February 13, 2019.
To the claim, Ferguson-Pratt said: “I have never seen her in my life until she appeared in court”.
I don’t know [any] of these defendants. I have never seen them. We do not interact. We do not move in the same circles. There is no proximity to me in any way. — CHIEF MAGISTRATE JOYANN FERGUSON-PRATT
Ferguson-Pratt vehemently refuted the claim, insisting that she did know Reckley nor did she see her or any of the defendants until they appeared in her courtroom.
The chief magistrate said as a matter of record she unequivocally does “not know her from Adam”.
“I do not know her,” the chief magistrate said.
“The first time I laid eyes on her was when she was brought before the court. I don’t know Michelle Reckley. I have never seen her in my life until she appeared in court on the 13th.”
Ferguson-Pratt said the application being made was of “great concern”.
Two of Reckley’s co-accused, one of whom was in the cell with her and another in a cell opposite, said the detention entry was false.
The chief magistrate continued: “I don’t know none of these defendants. I have never seen them. We do not interact. We do not move in the same circles. There is no proximity to me in any way.”
She added: “This is of great concern because somehow, I, as the adjudicator, am the subject of apparent bias. That causes me professional concern.”
When the chief magistrate suggested the Crown make the recusal application before the Supreme Court, Damian Gomez, QC, who represents Reckley and four other defendants, said if that happened, there may be a loss of record of the chief magistrate’s on the record comments from the bench.
Ferguson-Pratt made clear that she had no objection to the matter being heard elsewhere, but the reasoning must “be properly grounded”.
She asked the Crown to establish its claim of bias.
She also noted that the matter has been ongoing since 2019, calling it an “inordinate delay” in the trial.
For his part, Gomez said he had represented Reckley since the onset of the matter, including when she landed on New Providence, and assured that his client did not know the chief magistrate and had never met her.
He said he may have Reckley swear an affidavit of the same.
Murrio Ducille, counsel for co-accused Cristopher Symonette, said the officers ought to be called to court for cross-examination.
Bonaby had no objection, though he noted one of the officers had since retired.
Ducille suggested the change of venue and recusal application was an effort for the matter not to be heard by the chief magistrate, to which he said he would object.
Gomez also advised the court that no notice had been given for the application and he needed an opportunity to review it.
The matter was adjourned to Wednesday at noon.
