A long-running criminal case against two former Inland Revenue Department employees accused of coordinated fraud and serious public office misconduct has been pushed back for another hearing, renewing sharp criticism from top prosecution officials over repeated procedural holdups that have stretched the case out for more than a decade.
Two accused, Joseph Nathaniel Sobers, a clerical officer based in Pie Corner, St Lucy, and Cheryl Leverne Thomas, an assistant accountant from Kingsland, Christ Church, face two overlapping criminal charges. Prosecutors allege that between August 2008 and June 2009, the pair conspired to deceive a private individual named Shane Hurley into paying them $45,000. The false scheme centered on claiming Hurley owed $375,000 in unpaid taxes to the Inland Revenue Department, and that a $45,000 payment to the two civil servants would fully clear the purported debt. The second charge accuses the pair, as public officials entrusted with tax administration, of intentional misconduct that violated the public’s trust by soliciting the unauthorized $45,000 payment for a non-existent outstanding tax obligation.
When the case was called before the Supreme Court’s Court No. 4 on Monday, the legal team for both defendants was absent. Lead defense counsel for each accused—Senior Counsel Andrew Pilgrim representing Sobers, and Sade Harris representing Thomas—were tied up with other matters in separate courtrooms across the jurisdiction, leaving only junior attorneys to stand in for the defendants on the hearing date.
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Alliston Seale, a Senior Counsel who appeared in court personally for the hearing, voiced public frustration over the continued delay. Seale explained he had attended the hearing specifically to get clear direction on scheduling the trial from the lead defense attorneys who are overseeing the case. He noted that the matter had already been adjourned the previous week, when he first raised questions about moving the trial process forward.
“I have nothing but respect for the junior counsel appearing today, but I came here to hear from the attorneys actually leading the defense so we could finalize a path forward,” Seale told the court. “We are in exactly the same position we were in last week. I could have sent a junior member of my team to hold this hearing while I handled other work back at the office.”
Seale emphasized that the prosecution has been fully prepared to proceed with the trial for years, yet no progress has been made. “We are no closer to a resolution today than we were years ago. Then we end up hearing widespread complaints about the slow pace of justice—this kind of delay is incredibly frustrating,” he added.
Presiding Justice Laurie-Ann Smith-Bovell responded by adjourning the case to a new hearing date of September 9, issuing a clear warning that a binding decision on the next steps for the trial would be issued at that time, no matter which defense attorneys are present in court. The justice’s comment signaled a push to end the cycle of adjournments that has held up the case.
This is not the first time Seale has pushed back against delays in the case. Last week, he publicly stated that prosecution had never contributed to the hold-ups at any point in the legal process, and highlighted the unnecessary toll that extended delays take on all parties connected to the case, including the alleged victim, the accused, and the public justice system.