Government’s Legal Position Questioned Following Privy Council Ruling in Similar Prest Case

The recent Privy Council judgment of March 24, 2025, has reignited the controversy surrounding the legal battles of businessman Michael Prest, casting a spotlight on the government’s decision to contest his leave to appeal despite advice to the contrary from Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan. The Privy Council’s decision, which granted leave to appeal for two Anguillian offshore banks previously denied by lower courts, underscores the importance of judicial review in safeguarding public interest and individual rights against the abuse of power. This pivotal judgment has drawn parallels to Prest’s own struggle for legal recourse, raising concerns about potential procedural irregularities and the government’s adherence to the principles of fairness and due process.

The core of the Privy Council’s decision lies in its emphasis on the distinct nature of judicial review, separating it from ordinary private disputes. Judicial review serves as a crucial check on the exercise of public power, ensuring its lawful application and protecting individuals from its potential misuse. The judgment emphasizes the “duty of candour,” a principle requiring full and frank disclosure by all parties involved, which is essential for the court to effectively fulfill its supervisory function. This principle becomes particularly critical in cases like Prest’s, where the potential for abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights is at the forefront. The government’s decision to oppose Prest’s application for leave to appeal, despite Ramlogan’s advice, has raised questions about whether this duty of candour has been fully upheld.

Prest’s case mirrors the Anguillian banks’ situation in its pursuit of judicial review to challenge decisions perceived as unlawful. However, Prest’s access to justice has been hampered at an earlier stage, preventing him from even reaching the Court of Appeal to argue the unconstitutionality of the rule barring his appeal. This denial of access raises crucial questions about the fairness and accessibility of the legal system, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake. Critics argue that the government’s actions, in direct opposition to Ramlogan’s legal counsel, have effectively blocked Prest from exercising his right to a fair hearing and potentially challenging the very basis of the criminal charges against him.

The resurgence of a 2021 letter authored by Damian Kelsick, Esq., prior to his appointment as King’s Counsel, adds another layer of complexity to the controversy. The letter relates to the very matter that led to the criminal charges against Prest, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest given the involvement of Kelsick’s then-law partner, now a prominent figure in public legal affairs. This connection raises concerns about undisclosed potential conflicts of interest and the potential influence of past client relationships on current legal proceedings. The lack of transparency regarding this connection further fuels concerns about whether the duty of candour has been properly observed.

The confluence of these factors – the Privy Council’s emphasis on the duty of candour, the government’s decision to oppose Prest’s appeal despite contrary legal advice, and the resurfacing of Kelsick’s letter – has sparked intense scrutiny of the handling of Prest’s case. Legal experts and civil society groups are raising concerns about potential prosecutorial overreach, violations of due process, and the broader implications for the protection of fundamental rights. The lack of an official government response to these concerns only amplifies the calls for an independent review of the entire matter.

The Prest case has become a focal point for broader concerns about the fairness and integrity of the legal system, particularly in cases involving constitutional appeals and potential violations of fundamental rights. The calls for an independent review reflect a growing demand for transparency and accountability within the legal process. Such a review could examine not only the specifics of Prest’s case but also the systemic issues that may have contributed to the current situation. This includes evaluating the process for handling constitutional appeals, ensuring access to justice, and safeguarding against potential conflicts of interest within the legal profession. The outcome of this ongoing saga will undoubtedly have significant implications for the future of legal proceedings and the protection of fundamental rights within the jurisdiction.