(Trinidad Express) Disgraced king’s counsel Vincent Nelson has filed an appeal to have his conviction set aside on the grounds of abuse of executive power and misconduct, breach of promise not to prosecute, or both.
On March 2, 2020, Justice Malcolm Holdip sentenced Nelson to a fine of TT$2.3 million with three years’ hard labour in default.
Nelson has not paid the fine, as he contends that it falls within the terms of the indemnity agreement, which should be paid by the State.
In the appeal filed on October 31, which has been obtained by Sunday Express, Nelson contended that he was induced by former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi and the State to provide statements in exchange for monetary benefits and immunity.
Nelson has also applied for an extension of time to appeal his case after more than four years have passed since his conviction.
Nelson is also asking the court to expedite the consideration of his application for leave to appeal, and to direct that the substantive appeal hearing be heard expeditiously because of the ongoing deleterious impact the proceedings continue to have on his mental health, and the considerable financial hardship, including the risk of bankruptcy, if the proceedings are not expedited.
In late 2017, sometime between October and November, Nelson, who was represented by attorney Roger Kawalsingh, entered into an indemnity agreement with the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (GORTT) through then-attorney general Faris Al-Rawi. The indemnity agreement required Nelson to give a notarised statement implicating Anand Ramlogan and Gerald Ramdeen with respect to “alleged 10 per cent kickbacks of legal fees to Ramlogan and Ramdeen” in exchange for an indemnification by the attorney general not to be criminally prosecuted and to be paid a substantial amount of money in pounds sterling.
Nelson’s attorneys said he was sentenced by Justice Holdip to a non-custodial sentence (fine) while the DPP agreed to recommend a non-custodial sentence, but added: “The court was at liberty to disregard that recommendation but added: At the material time, Nelson was suffering from cancer, paying for treatment, unable to work and experiencing serious financial difficulties. He was operating from a position of weakness and not strength.”
Nelson, they said, outlined the delay in making his application to appeal through his affidavit.
He pointed out the “extensive toll that the proceedings have taken on him. This is especially in light of the high-profile nature of the case, the adverse publicity, the ruination of his professional name, and the loss of professional friendships”.
Nelson said he believes based on the facts that his appeal has obvious merit, and, it involves the abuse of executive power or executive misconduct, which is of the utmost gravity. His attorneys argue that there are, therefore, compelling reasons for granting the application.
