Trinidad Appeal Court rejects Vincent Nelson’s bid to challenge 2019 conviction

Convicted Jamaican-born King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson has lost his attempt to challenge his 2019 corruption conviction, as the Trinidad and Tobago Court of Appeal dismissed his application for leave to appeal, citing delay and lack of merit.

- Advertisement -

In a ruling delivered on July 29, Justices Nolan Bereaux, James Aboud, and Geoffrey Henderson found that Nelson failed to prove misconduct by state officials and waited too long to initiate his appeal.

Justice Henderson, delivering the judgment, said Nelson— a UK-based tax attorney — voluntarily entered a plea agreement in 2019 and had multiple opportunities to inform the court of any promises or threats he now claims led to his guilty plea. At the time, he was represented by senior counsel and raised no objections to the terms of the agreement.

Nelson pleaded guilty in June 2019 to conspiracy to commit corruption and money laundering in a legal-fee kickback scheme. He was fined $2.25 million in March 2020 after agreeing to testify against former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, and ex-UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen. However, those cases were discontinued in 2022 after Nelson refused to testify until a separate $95 million civil claim regarding an alleged indemnity agreement was resolved. That judgment is still pending.

In his appeal, filed in October 2023—over four years after his conviction—Nelson argued that then-attorney general Faris Al-Rawi had promised him immunity, a presidential pardon, and payment of legal fees. He claimed he only gave a self-incriminating statement because he believed he was protected under those terms.

But Justice Henderson noted Nelson provided no sworn statement from the attorney who allegedly conveyed the promises and that the available evidence showed he acted voluntarily throughout the plea process. The court found Nelson’s reasons for the delay, including illness and expectations of a pardon, unconvincing.

The judges ruled that granting the extension would undermine the integrity of plea agreements, which are safeguarded under the Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion and Plea Agreement) Act. “No satisfactory or convincing reasons have been proffered which justify the lengthy delay,” Henderson stated.

During the hearing, Nelson’s legal team—led by Edward Fitzgerald, KC—argued that state misconduct invalidated the plea deal. Fitzgerald claimed Nelson, treated as a confidential informant, was “tricked” by broken promises and executive overreach. He noted Nelson received £1 million (approximately TT$8.99 million) just days after giving his statement and posed the question, “Why would he put his head in a noose unless he believed he was protected?”

The Director of Public Prosecutions’ lead attorney, Ian Benjamin, SC, argued that Nelson, an experienced barrister, entered the plea knowingly and strategically delayed challenging it for personal gain. “He wanted leverage, a ‘strong bargaining position,’” Benjamin said. He emphasized that Nelson led the negotiations and that only the DPP can direct prosecutions, while pardons fall under the authority of the Mercy Committee.

“There is no prospect of success,” Benjamin said, pointing out contradictions in Nelson’s affidavit.

Justice Henderson, a former DPP himself, agreed. “On the totality of the credible and admissible evidence, the applicant has not discharged his burden establishing that the courts’ process has been abused or that he is likely to succeed on this ground should leave to appeal be granted.”

Nelson has yet to pay the $2.25 million fine imposed on him. He was represented by attorneys Naveen Maraj and Varun Debideen. The DPP’s office was also represented by Tekiyah Jorsling and Tonya Rowley.