Vincent Nelson tries again to appeal conviction

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 he believed he would be protected from prosecution and later granted a pardon.

“That is a promise that carries some weight,” he argued.

He said Nelson would have never made the notarised statement, “which put his head in the noose,” yet he did because there was a promise not to prosecute and then a promise to pardon.

Justice Henderson questioned Fitzgerald on why Nelson entered into plea discussions with the DPP.

Fitzgerald responded: “He was told the DPP would do what I say. We know the DPP disagreed, and there was a plea agreement.”

He suggested that Nelson may have been tricked into providing evidence, only to be prosecuted afterwards.

“It may have been a false promise, a trick, an overreach,” Fitzgerald argued. “But we say that a promise was made.”

Henderson, however, noted that Nelson voluntarily entered into a plea agreement, accepted criminal liability, and never challenged it until years later.

Fitzgerald countered that Nelson expected a pardon.

He also highlighted payments for fees owed to him for state briefs.

“Why did he make the notarised statement, which put his head in a noose?” Fitzgerald asked. “He was told make a statement, then you would get paid. If you do not, he would carry on appealing, and you would never get your money.”

According to Fitzgerald, three days after Nelson submitted his notarised statement, he was paid one million British pounds.

“There is an awful lot we have not come to the bottom of in this case,” Fitzgerald told the court.

Fitzgerald further argued that Nelson was a confidential informant and should have been protected, but the government flagrantly breached the indemnity agreement.

“This is an informer. The most fundamental principle of the law is you protect his identity, you do not disclose him,” he said. “They flagrantly broke clause 2 of the indemnity agreement,” he said, referring to the provision of information to the NCA, the UK’s white-collar investigating agency.

He maintained that Al-Rawi’s conduct – promising immunity, a pardon, and payments – amounted to an abuse of process.

“If there is misconduct, you cannot have a safe conviction,” Fitzgerald said. “Even where there was a guilty plea.”

However, Benjamin strongly opposed the application, arguing that Nelson’s claims lacked credibility and failed to explain his years-long delay in appealing.

“He talks about cancer, depression, and his impecuniosity, but he fails to explain why he embarked on complex civil litigation but failed to approach the Court of Appeal. He has no explanation for not doing anything.”

He accused Nelson of deliberately delaying his appeal for personal advantage:

“All his actions were self-driven and self-motivated. He wanted to get an advantage or, as he put it, a ‘strong bargaining position.’”

Benjamin also questioned Nelson’s affidavit, which he said contained contradictions.

“He is not a 17-year-old but a decades-old commercial barrister,” Benjamin stated. He maintained that Nelson was not induced, coerced or misled.

“He led, initiated, designed and executed the strategy of negotiation with the (former) attorney general.”

The DPP’s attorney took the judges through Gaspard’s affidavit and also emphasised that not only did Nelson initiate the course of events that ultimately led to him pleading guilty, but there were also “none of the so-called inducements” he claimed.

“He knew the DPP and no one else deals with prosecutions and that any pardon would come from the Mercy Committee.

“The Attorney General could not give assurance of non-prosecution or a pardon.”

Benjamin insisted there was no prospect of success of Nelson’s appeal because there was no evidence to support his contentions.

“There is almost no dispute, at all, as to the sequence of actions. Mr Gaspard specifically addresses what he knew and when he knew it. There is no basis to go behind that.”

Naveen Maraj and Varun Debideen also represent Nelson. Tekiyah Jorsling and Tonya Rowley also appear for the DPP.