ROAD TOWN, Tortola, British Virgin Islands — The Honourable Myron V. Walwyn has won another significant legal battle in the long-running Elmore Stoutt High School (ESHS) perimeter wall matter, after the judicial review brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was dismissed by the court.
The court also ordered the DPP to pay Mr Walwyn’s costs.
The judicial review was the latest chapter in a legal dispute that began with concerns about the construction of the ESHS perimeter wall, developed into a police investigation and criminal charges, and continued even after a magistrate ruled that Mr Walwyn had no case to answer.
The court’s latest decision brings renewed attention to the handling of the prosecution and the legal questions surrounding the case.
The court’s decision
The judicial review was brought in an attempt to challenge the decision of Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards, who ruled in January 2025 that Mr Walwyn and former Ministry of Education Assistant Secretary Lorna Stevens had no case to answer on the breach-of-trust charges against them.
The court has now dismissed the judicial review and ordered the DPP to pay Mr Walwyn’s costs.
According to the information available on the ruling, the court found no evidence of wrongdoing in the matter.
The outcome represents a further legal setback for the prosecution after the earlier dismissal of the charges against Mr Walwyn and Ms Stevens.
The written judgment and its precise reasoning should be consulted to establish the full scope of the court’s findings.
How the wall controversy began
The controversy centres on the perimeter wall project at Elmore Stoutt High School, undertaken during Mr Walwyn’s tenure as Minister of Education and Culture under the National Democratic Party administration.
The project, which commenced in December 2014, was intended to improve security around the Territory’s principal public secondary school. However, it subsequently attracted scrutiny over its costs, procurement arrangements and execution.
In a 2018 report, Auditor General Sonia Webster raised concerns about the project, including alleged cost overruns, the use of multiple work orders and petty contracts, and whether public funds had been spent in accordance with applicable financial regulations.
The report indicated that more than $1.08 million had been spent by the time work stopped in 2015, although other public accounts of the project cited higher overall figures.
The findings prompted questions about how the project was managed and whether the Government received value for the money spent.
Mr Walwyn disputed aspects of the criticism and defended his handling of the project, arguing that the relevant financial framework permitted the use of work orders.
The controversy subsequently became part of the wider scrutiny of public administration in the British Virgin Islands.
From audit findings to a police investigation
Following the concerns raised by the Auditor General, the matter was referred for further investigation.
In 2019, the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force began investigating the project. By January 2020, then-Commissioner of Police Michael Matthews confirmed that the investigation had been completed and that the file had been submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.
The investigation examined the project’s procurement and financial arrangements, including the use of contractors and the circumstances surrounding payments.
The police investigation did not itself establish criminal guilt. The decision to prosecute rested with the DPP, and any criminal allegations would have to be proved in court.
The Commission of Inquiry and renewed scrutiny
The wall project also came under examination during the British Virgin Islands Commission of Inquiry, led by Sir Gary Hickinbottom.
The Commission examined the project as part of its broader investigation into governance, public administration and the use of public funds.
In its report, the Commission raised concerns about the project’s procurement arrangements, the use of multiple work orders and the selection and qualifications of contractors.
Mr Walwyn defended his decisions and maintained that he had acted within the powers available to him under the applicable financial regulations.
The Commission’s findings formed part of the wider public controversy surrounding the project. However, findings concerning administrative practices and procurement should be distinguished from the separate question of whether the elements of a criminal offence could be established against an individual.
Criminal charges in 2022
In 2022, Mr Walwyn and Ms Stevens were charged with breach of trust by a public official in connection with the wall project.
The prosecution alleged wrongdoing in the handling of the project. Both defendants contested the charges.
Mr Walwyn was represented by attorney Terrence Williams, while Ms Stevens was represented by attorney Valston Graham.
The proceedings continued through the Magistrates’ Court, with the defence challenging whether the prosecution had produced sufficient evidence to establish a case requiring the defendants to answer the charges.
The case attracted considerable public attention because of Mr Walwyn’s position as an elected representative and the wider controversy surrounding the Commission of Inquiry.
January 2025: Magistrate rules there was no case to answer
On 21 January 2025, Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards upheld the defence submissions that Mr Walwyn and Ms Stevens had no case to answer.
The ruling resulted in both defendants being acquitted of the charges before the Magistrates’ Court.
The decision was a major development in a case that had remained under public scrutiny for years.
Mr Walwyn maintained that the prosecution had failed to establish wrongdoing. He subsequently said that he remained confident in the judicial process.
However, the legal dispute did not end with the magistrate’s ruling.
The DPP challenges the decision
On 23 January 2025, the DPP filed an appeal challenging the magistrate’s decision in favour of Mr Walwyn and Ms Stevens.
The prosecution’s challenge raised questions about the magistrate’s handling of the evidence, the legal basis of the ruling and whether the decision should stand.
The defence contested the prosecution’s attempt to pursue the matter further.
In May 2025, the DPP withdrew the separate appeal after questions were raised about the appropriate legal route for challenging the magistrate’s decision.
That withdrawal did not end the dispute.
A judicial review claim had also been filed in the High Court seeking to challenge the magistrate’s decision. The claim sought declarations that the magistrate’s decision was wrong in law and that the proceedings had been handled improperly.
The judicial review became the next stage in the prolonged legal battle.
Judicial review dismissed: Walwyn wins again
The dismissal of the judicial review now marks another important development in the case.
The court has dismissed the challenge and ordered the DPP to pay Mr Walwyn’s legal costs.
For Mr Walwyn, the outcome follows the earlier ruling that the prosecution had not established a case against him at the close of its evidence.
The latest decision also brings the legal process surrounding the judicial review to an end at this stage, subject to any further proceedings permitted by law.
The precise implications of the judgment must be assessed against the court’s written reasons and any applicable appeal rights.
Questions of accountability remain
Although the criminal case against Mr Walwyn and Ms Stevens was dismissed, the history of the wall project continues to raise broader questions about public procurement, project oversight and the management of taxpayers’ money.
The Auditor General and Commission of Inquiry raised concerns about the project’s administration. Those concerns remain part of the public record and should not be confused with the separate question of criminal liability.
Equally, allegations of criminal wrongdoing cannot be treated as established simply because a project attracted audit criticism or a police investigation.
The judicial process has now produced a series of significant outcomes in Mr Walwyn’s favour, beginning with the January 2025 no-case ruling and followed by the dismissal of the DPP’s judicial review.
For the public, the case illustrates the importance of distinguishing between administrative shortcomings, questions of value for money and the evidential requirements necessary to sustain a criminal prosecution.
The central question now is whether the dismissal of the judicial review will finally bring the prolonged legal dispute surrounding the ESHS wall to a close.