CONVICTED King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson has failed in his attempt to appeal his conviction and sentence for conspiring to commit money laundering, misbehaviour in public office and conspiracy to commit an act of corruption relating to a legal-fee kickback conspiracy.

A notice of appeal was filed on October 31, 2023, five years and five months after he was convicted. He had 14 days in which to appeal his conviction.

On July 17, Justice of Appeal Mark Mohammed dismissed Nelson’s application. He now intends to appeal to a full panel of three judges.

Nelson’s application for an extension of time to file his appeal was premised on events leading up to a plea agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). These events, the appeal alleged, were an abuse of power and a breach of a promise not to prosecute.

In May 2019, Nelson, a tax attorney who lives in the UK, was indicted on three charges. Nelson entered a plea deal with the Office of the DPP, which included an agreement that he would testify against former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen.

Nelson was convicted on June 4, 2019, sentenced on March 2, 2020, and ordered to pay $2.25 million in fines, which he also wants the State to pay.

In October 2022, DPP Roger Gaspard made the shocking announcement of the decision to discontinue the case against Ramlogan and Ramdeen because Nelson refused to testify against them until his civil claim for $95 million in compensation for the alleged breach of the indemnity agreement was determined.

In March 2023, Nelson’s attorneys wrote to Gaspard asking him to appeal his conviction and sentence but the DPP refused, saying he believed the grounds set out by Nelson were not justified or factually well founded.

Nelson’s application had set out the events leading to the indemnity deal he entered with then attorney general Faris Al-Rawi and the Government. He alleged ten promises were made to him.

In his ruling, Mohammed said Nelson’s account was “in some ways nebulous, speculative, and partly based on hearsay statements. “

He added, “Standing against this is the uncontroverted fact of the plea agreement and the appended statements of the applicant and his then attorney-at-law and the guilty plea during which the applicant voluntarily stated that his guilty plea was a voluntary one and that no promises, agreements, undertakings, or inducements had been made to him and that no one had threatened or forced him to enter into the plea agreement.”

Mohammed also maintained that Nelson’s assertions were “now violently inconsistent” with the terms of his plea agreement. He also pointed to statements made by Nelson’s trial attorney, Tom Allen, KC, who explained to then-High Court judge Malcolm Holdip that his client freely made a statement (to the police) inculpating himself and others.

Nelson has not recanted, a point also raised by the DPP in resisting the application.

Mohammed was also critical of the former AG in his ruling.

“The actions of Mr Al-Rawi could potentiall