DIRECTOR of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC, will not apply to the Court of Appeal to have King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson’s conviction and sentence set aside.
This is because Gaspard believes the grounds set out by Nelson were not justified or factually well founded.
In fact, the DPP says he was not previously aware of much of what Nelson’s attorneys laid out in their letter of March 15, in which they made the request in the “interest of justice.”
Gaspard’s attorney Elaine Green articulated his position in a written response to Nelson’s attorneys on May 4.
Nelson’s attorneys, in a 36-page letter, had called on the DPP to have his conviction and sentence set aside, “in the interest of justice.” To do this, he wanted the DPP to use the power of his office to appeal his conviction.
Attorneys for the Jamaican-born Nelson said the DPP had a duty to disclose to the court the specific terms of the indemnity agreement between Nelson and the Government.
Its disclosure by Gaspard, the attorneys also said, would have inevitably led to Justice Malcolm Holdip rejecting the plea agreement in 2019, because of the promises former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi made to Nelson for the Government.
Nelson relied on the Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion and Plea Agreement) Act, in particular section 31(2), and the DPP’s powers under the Constitution to make his case.
In May 2019, Nelson, 62, a tax attorney who lives in the UK, was indicted on three charges of conspiring to commit money laundering, misbehaviour in public office and conspiracy to commit an act of corruption relating to a legal-fee kickback conspiracy.
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 wants the State to pay.
Those fines become due on July 31. Holdip ordered Nelson to pay the fine in monthly instalments over the course of ten months, beginning at the end of April 2019, or face five years’ imprisonment.
Nelson has benefited from the Judiciary’s deferring the payment of the fines several times.
Green’s letter contained a caveat urging Nelson to be “circumspect” in disseminating the DPP’s position since, she said, its contents and Gaspard’s concerns had the prospect of causing severe and unnecessary prejudice to him and any retrial of the two former politicians.
Green began her letter by pointing out that Nelson had already been convicted and sentenced. As a result, she advised that the DPP “cannot” exercise any power under section 90 of the Constitution in relation to him.
“The request is therefore a very delayed invitation to the director to apply to the Appeal Court for leave to appeal in the public interest and in the interest of the administration of justice.”
Green’s letter dealt with Nelson’s claims involving the indemnity from the government and the p
