Court of Appeal Upholds Government Victory, Denying Michael Prest’s Privy Council Appeal.

Paragraph 1: Context and Initial Legal Proceedings

The legal saga involving Michael J. Prest and the government of Saint Kitts and Nevis reached a pivotal point on April 10, 2025, with the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Mr. Prest’s application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. This latest ruling reinforces the government’s position in the ongoing dispute, which originated from arrest warrants issued against Mr. Prest in 2021. The warrants were related to allegations of fraudulent conversion exceeding US$2.53 million. Mr. Prest subsequently initiated legal action seeking to quash the warrants through judicial review. This initial attempt to halt the proceedings was unsuccessful, with the High Court rejecting his application.

Paragraph 2: The Court of Appeal’s Initial Decision and Mr. Prest’s Subsequent Actions

Following the High Court’s unfavorable decision, Mr. Prest appealed to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal. However, in April 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, asserting a lack of jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Court’s decision hinged on the nature of the case, categorizing it as a "criminal cause or matter" which, according to section 33(3)(a) of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Christopher and Nevis) Act, precluded the Court of Appeal’s involvement. Undeterred by this setback, Mr. Prest sought further recourse by applying for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of His Majesty’s Privy Council, the final appellate court for Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Paragraph 3: The Privy Council Application and the Court of Appeal’s Definitive Ruling

Mr. Prest’s application to appeal to the Privy Council centered on two key arguments. Firstly, he contended that the case involved a disputable interpretation of the Constitution of Saint Christopher and Nevis, thus satisfying the criteria outlined in section 99(1)(c) of the Constitution. Secondly, he argued that the matter raised issues of significant public importance, aligning with section 99(2)(a) of the Constitution. However, the Court of Appeal rejected both these arguments, asserting that no such constitutional issues were at stake and that the proposed appeal lacked sufficient grounds of public importance to warrant consideration by the Privy Council.

Paragraph 4: Reaffirmation of the "Criminal Matter" Classification and the Government’s Response

Crucially, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed its earlier determination that Mr. Prest’s case constituted a "criminal cause or matter." This reaffirmation served to solidify the Court’s stance regarding its lack of jurisdiction and effectively barred further appeal on that basis. The government of Saint Kitts and Nevis, represented by Attorney General Garth Wilkin and Solicitor General Simone Bullen-Thompson, welcomed the Court’s decision. Attorney General Wilkin emphasized the government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law, defending legitimate state actions, and ensuring the efficient administration of justice.

Paragraph 5: Implications of the Ruling and the Government’s Commitment to Legal Integrity

The Court of Appeal’s ruling represents a significant victory for the government of Saint Kitts and Nevis, effectively ending Mr. Prest’s legal challenges to the 2021 arrest warrants. This outcome reinforces the authority of the warrants and clears the path for further legal proceedings related to the allegations of fraudulent conversion. The government’s firm stance throughout this legal battle underscores its dedication to maintaining the integrity of the Federation’s legal system and ensuring that justice prevails. The Attorney General’s Office continues to work diligently in pursuit of these objectives.

Paragraph 6: The Composition of the Court and Access to the Judgment

The unanimous judgment, delivered by Justice of Appeal Trevor M. Ward KC, and concurred with by Justices of Appeal Margaret Price Findlay and Gerard St. C. Farara KC (Ag), provides a conclusive resolution to this stage of the legal proceedings. Mr. Peter Foster KC represented Michael J. Prest in the appeal. The full text of the judgment has been made publicly available online, promoting transparency and allowing for wider scrutiny of the Court’s reasoning and legal arguments presented by both parties. This accessibility further reinforces the principles of open justice and accountability within the legal system.