Acquitted ex-WIPL director sues over ‘malicious’ prosecution

A businessman who was acquitted of criminal charges has claimed in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit that police investigators ignored evidence that exonerated him and instead relied on “unreliable or incomplete” information.

John Levy also claimed in the lawsuit that senior executives at energy company West Indies Petroleum Limited (WIPL) acted “maliciously” by making or causing complaints to be made to the police against him knowing that the allegations were false.

“Not only was there no reasonable and probable cause to charge the claimant, but members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force, and particularly Deputy Superintendent John Badley, were negligent in the conduct of the investigation,” claimed the filing seen by The Sunday Gleaner.

But WIPL, in its defence to the lawsuit, denied that it wrongfully caused criminal charges to be filed against Levy or that the charges were laid in the absence of “credible and admissible evidence”.

The energy company also denied making any false statements about Levy or that it was aware or should have been aware that the allegations “were baseless or incapable of proof”.

“The decision to arrest, charge and prosecute the claimant was made independently by the Jamaica Constabulary Force and/or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions,” WIPL asserted in documents filed in the case.

It also insisted that the criminal charges filed against Levy had no bearing on the ongoing civil litigation between the two sides.

“The [criminal] proceedings were not pursued to damage the claimant’s [Levy] reputation. A report was made to the police, who conducted their independent investigations,” it insisted.

Levy, who is a shareholder in WIPL, was arrested by the police Counter-Terrorism and Organised Crime Division in February 2022, along with another WIPL shareholder, Courtney Wilkinson. Both were charged with four offences under the Cybercrimes Act.

The charges were based on allegations that they illegally accessed the emails of WIPL executives. WIPL was the complainant in the criminal case.

But the charges against Levy were dismissed in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court on May 16, 2025, after prosecutors told a judge they were offering no evidence against him.

Wilkinson’s trial is still pending.

$47 million in damages

Levy, Wilkinson and WIPL have been entangled in a series of lawsuits in Jamaica and St Lucia related to the energy company.

Levy’s lawsuit seeks at least $47 million in damages for malicious prosecution, abuse of the court process and negligence.

It was filed in the Supreme Court by the law firm MayhewLaw and lists WIPL; the company’s chairman, Gordon Shirley (not Prof Gordon Shirley); chief executive officer, Gerald Chambers; and secretary, Tarik Felix, as defendants.

The attorney general was also listed as a defendant because of the alleged actions of police investigators and other agents of the State who were involved in the case.

Levy claimed, in the lawsuit, that agents of the State had no reasonable and probable cause for suspecting that he committed any of the charges that were laid against him.

The businessman alleged that the WIPL executives made false statements against him with the “predominant motive” of punishing him for the civil cases he filed against the energy company.

He claimed, too, that the false statements and WIPL’s pursuit of the criminal case were in furtherance of a shareholder dispute related to WIPL and to damage his reputation and business interests rather than to seek justice.

WIPL, however, outlined its version of how the email accounts of several executives were allegedly compromised and said based on the results of a preliminary investigation, a report was made to the police.

“It is denied that the first defendant (WIPL) made any false statement against the claimant with the motive of punishing the claimant for filing a civil suit against it,” the company said.

Levy also alleged that police investigators were negligent in the conduct of their investigation.

He claimed that they failed to make proper and impartial enquiries before making their decision to arrest and charge him.

The businessman alleged, too, that cops ignored evidence that exonerated him; relied on unreliable or incomplete evidence; and proceeded with charges that “the evidence was insufficient to sustain”.

livern.barrett@gleanerjm.com