Cassell & Anor v The Queen (Montserrat)

Trinity Term

[2016] UKPC 19

Privy Council Appeal No 0056 of 2013

LORD HUGHES:

1.                   The first appellant, Warren Cassell ("Cassell"), was at all material times practising as a lawyer in Montserrat. He was convicted, together with the second appellant, a company owned and controlled by him, of counts of conspiracy to defraud, procuring the execution of valuable securities by deception, and money laundering. In the Court of Appeal, the appeals were dismissed except for that relating to money laundering, where the charge had been laid under the wrong statute. Both appellants appeal further against the other convictions. The grounds argued on their behalf by Mr Thomas Roe QC differ radically from those advanced before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had no opportunity to consider the case as now put to the Board.

2.                   In about 2007 Cassell became interested in development land in Montserrat which belonged to a company called Providence Estate Ltd ("PEL"). PEL was a close company wholly owned by two American developers, Messrs Wood (60%) and Rooney (40%), neither of whom lived in Montserrat. Those two gentlemen were the sole directors and shareholders. The land had been acquired by PEL some years previously, before the volcano disaster of 1995, after which it had lain undeveloped and the company had become dormant. Cassell set about acquiring control and selling off the plots of land. He formed the close company which was the second appellant ("C&L Inc") as a vehicle to do so. The indictment alleged that he and, through him, C&L Inc, had gone about this plan dishonestly in two principal ways:

(i)                 Cassell had dealt only with Wood, and, with the dishonest object of cutting out Rooney, or at least of depriving him of any participation and of presenting him with a fait accompli, had proceeded to act as if he had the legal right to deal with PEL's land; this allegation gave rise to two counts of conspiracy to defraud Rooney;

(ii)              he had purported to sell plots of land, in the name of PEL, to innocent purchasers when he had no lawful authority to act for PEL and could not, in consequence, give them the title which they thought they were getting; the proceeds of sale were at his request paid to C&L Inc; this allegation gave rise to a series of counts of procuring the execution of valuable securities (chiefly deposits and balances of the purchase price) by deception.

The case at trial

3.                   The Crown evidence was uncontradicted and indeed very largely unchallenged at the trial. Cassell…