Warren Cassell (Respondent) v The King (Appellant) (Montserrat)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0031

Jurisdiction

Montserrat

Parties

Appellant(s)

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Montserrat

Respondent(s)

Warren Cassell

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in finding: (i) that there was no case to answer because no documents were properly admitted as evidence? (ii) a miscarriage of justice had occurred because the prosecution had shown documents to the jury that had not been tendered into evidence?

Facts

Mr Warren Cassell (“the Respondent”) was at all material times practising as a lawyer in Montserrat. In 2007, the Respondent became interested in land which was undeveloped and owned by a company called Providence Estate Ltd (“PEL”). PEL was wholly owned by two American developers, Mr Owen Rooney and Mr Walter Wood. Mr Rooney and Mr Wood were the sole directors and shareholders. Mr Rooney owned 40% of the shares and Mr Wood owned the other 60%. The Respondent formed a company named Cassel and Lewis Inc (“C&L”) to acquire and sell the land. The Respondent purportedly acquired 60% of the shares in PEL belonging to Mr Wood for US$300,000.00. PEL had been struck off the companies register years prior. The Respondent therefore applied for administrative restoration of PEL to the register. The Respondent also signed himself as a director of PEL. The Respondent then sold lots of land to third parties. The funds for the sales of land were paid to C&L. Mr Rooney (who still owned 40% of the shares in PEL) was not consulted about the transfer of shares or the sales of land. On 22 June 2022, the Respondent was convicted of concealing the proceeds of criminal conduct contrary to section 33(1)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1999. The indictment alleged fraudulent conduct by the Respondent in dishonestly: (a) representing that he was a director of PEL; (b) representing that he had legal authority to sell the land; (c) filing a change of directors application with the companies register regarding PEL; and/or (d) receiving funds into the bank account of C&L for the sale of land. The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court which quashed the conviction and ordered no retrial. The Court of Appeal held that there had been a material irregularity in that documents not formally tendered as evidence were shown to the jury. For this reason, the Court of Appeal found that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.