Convicted King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson was the victim of broken promises, threats, and executive overreach, his lawyer Edward Fitzgerald, KC, argued before a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal as he sought to justify an extension of time to appeal Nelson’s conviction relating to a legal-fee kickback conspiracy.
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, SC, announced his 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.
His 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, 2024, Justice of Appeal Mark Mohammed dismissed Nelson’s application. On February 25, he sought permission before full panel of three judges.
Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, James Aboud and Geoffrey Henderson reserved their decision after more than five hours of submissions from Fitzgerald and Ian Benjamin, SC, for the DPP.
After briefly standing down the matter, Bereaux said their decision was to reserve. They promised a ruling by April or May, with the latter being more likely because of their workload.
Nelson’s application for an extension of time to file his appeal was premised on events leading up to a plea agreement with the DPP. These events, his appeal alleged, were an abuse of power and a breach of a promise not to prosecute.
Fitzgerald outlined a series of alleged misdeeds by former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi, including promises of non-prosecution, a pardon, and payment of legal fees in exchange for Nelson’s notarised statement that ultimately led to his conviction.
He insisted the case raised serious concerns about state misconduct, which warranted further review.
Fitzgerald detailed correspondence between Al-Rawi, the National Crime Agency (NCA), and attorney Roger Kawalsingh, which he argued demonstrated a clear promise that Nelson would not be prosecuted due to his role as a whistleblower.
“He (the former AG) is saying this man should not be prosecuted,” Fitzgerald told the court. “How can one read that other than him saying the others should be prosecuted but he (Vincent) should not?”
Fitzgerald contended that Nelson only provided a self-incriminating notarised statement because h
