Judge to rule on DPP case next Tuesday

1

SOURCE: OBSERVER

Antigua and Barbuda’s embattled Director of Public Prosecutions will learn his fate next Tuesday when a judge rules on his matter in Jamaica.

Anthony Armstrong is facing charges in his homeland of fraudulent conversion and conspiracy to defraud, as well as three counts each of uttering forged documents and forgery.

The charges relate to property that Armstrong apparently sold 18 years ago without the consent of his client who was imprisoned at the time.

Armstrong’s lawyer Hugh Wildman told Observer he is confident that the judge will throw the case out.

“When we met in court today [Monday], we were able to demonstrate that Mr Armstrong did not sell any property as was alleged.

In fact, the property was sold by the complainant’s cousin.

“He will be a free man by next week.

Based on the evidence and submission that we were able to demonstrate before the court, I believe we proved that there was no evidence implicating him in any illegal activity,” he said.

The claimant alleges that Armstrong repaid him US$15,450 between September 2006 and April 2007 through a third-party from Antigua.

But Wildman claims his client had later been blackmailed.

“Mr Armstrong was being blackmailed while he was in Antigua as a DPP.

The man came out of prison, wanted some money, and Armstrong from the kindness of his heart sent him some money,” he said.

The complainant previously reported Armstrong to Jamaica’s General Legal Council (GLC) over the matter.

In February, the GLC’s disciplinary committee found that Armstrong was guilty of professional misconduct for signing a document for a client who was not present.

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages. Your content is delivered instantly to thousands of users in Antigua and abroad!
Contact us at [email protected]

1 COMMENT

  1. Based on my reading of the evidence presented in the disciplinary report, will be surprised if his lawyer is not right. The conclusions based on the evidence presented by the handwriting expert is that the claimant (a convicted drug dealer)is being untruthful.

Comments are closed.