Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Leroy Parris matter: when justice blinks

Leroy Paris

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

There is the famous line “the law is an ass” which has been attributed to many through time. What it means is that sometimes when the law is applied, it achieves an absurd result.

Today the Barbados High Court issued the following order as summarised by Barbados Today:

The High Court has quashed a magistrate’s decision to commit former CLICO chairman Leroy Parris to stand trial on charges stemming from the alleged theft of $3.3 million from the insurance company.

Justice Michelle Weekes also prohibited the Director of Public Prosecutions from proceeding with the matter.

Parris’ attorney, King’s Counsel Hal Gollop, welcomed the ruling, saying his client felt vindicated.

However, King’s Counsel Roger Forde, appearing for the State, confirmed that an appeal will be filed, saying that “at some point in time, Mr Parris will face the jury”.

A scan of the BU Archives and the wider public record shows one thing clearly: Barbadians remain baffled at how the former CLICO Holdings CEO Leroy Parris has escaped accountability after having a $3.3 million cheque issued to himself by his sidekick, former CLICO Financial Controller Terrence Thornhill. That such a blatant and desperate act by Parris – bailing from a failing insurance company – could slide past the justice system without consequence will continue deflate public confidence in the legal system..

For those with short memories of which Barbadians are known – about 11,000 policyholders in Barbados were affected by the collapse of CLICO, and the government eventually took a hit of $400 million i.e. taxpayers. Despite the taxpayers having to underwrite CLICO’s mess, Parris’ lawyer was emboldened to express – post verdict today – that Parris deserved the $3.3 million payment at a time the company was experiencing financial difficulties.

In a forensic audit Accounting House Deloitte’s stated that the “$3.3 million cheque issued to Leroy Parris was not supported by any legitimate documentation, not authorised under CLICO’s policies, and could not be justified as a lawful payment“. Barbados is a nation of laws and we must live in hope that justice will be served. The country will await the appeal process. In the meantime Leroy Parris continues with his life in his octogenarian years. While his other sidekick the late Prime Minister David Thompson looks up at the shenanigans.

What unfolded in the High Court today is more than a legal transaction – it is a stress test of Barbados’ credibility as a modern justice system. When a transaction that auditors deemed wrong can be trumped by legal poppycock, it exposes something deeper: the widening gap between what the public understands as justice and what the court delivered as law. A gap where distrust will continue to fester.

The appeal now becomes more than a legal formality. Barbados cannot afford a justice system that appears selective in its decisions. The country’s integrity depends on whether the next stage of this case restores faith or confirms there in one law for the Meades and another for the Persians.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

53 responses to “Leroy Parris matter: when justice blinks”

  1. David Avatar
    David

    @Bush Tea

    You mean a PURGE? Reminiscent of the great FLOOD?

  2. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    Yup!

  3. David Avatar
    David

    DPP cannot be included

    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.

    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)

    Source: Nation

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading