Convicted attorney Hilary Jeffrey Nelson must make full restitution to the client from whom he stole more than $850 000 before the court even considers releasing him from prison.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
But full restitution, stressed Justice Pamela Beckles, was no guarantee that the disgraced lawyer would not get a custodial sentence.
The judge made the comments after one of Nelson’s character witnesses told the No. 5 Supreme Court the attorney had revealed that he (Nelson) was “going to make good” on his promise to repay the money he had stolen.
Nelson, 82, of Bagatelle Terrace, St James, had entered a last-minute guilty plea, after going on trial, to stealing £347 560.96, equivalent to BDS$855 000, belonging to Errol Hewitt of London, England, between November 13, 2018, and March 4, 2019.
Yesterday Nelson’s character witness, retired principal and former head of the Association of Public Primary School Principals, Ivan Clarke, said when he visited the convicted attorney in prison (three) days ago, Nelson expressed remorse and “spoke of restitution”.
“I believe the victim would have to be paid back and that is what he wants,” Clarke said.
“I’m not saying the court must not carry out its role but the victim must be paid,” he said.
Senior State Counsel Maya Kellman then asked the witness what efforts Nelson had made to make restitution.
“I know he was trying to accumulate some funds,” the character witness said.
The judge then pointed to the sum involved. “He will not be released until he has made restitution in full,” said Justice Beckles.
The judge referred to the complainant’s victim impact statement, which detailed the financial hardship the man had suffered as a result of the theft and having to get a second mortgage to buy the house.
“Yes, he is desirous of paying back, but we need to know how soon and how is he going to do that because a timeline has to be put on it,” the judge noted.
‘Not guaranteed’
“I would go as far as to say and, I know some people may not like it, but if the complainant was paid in full, because I know that is what the complainant would want, then we may consider a sentence other than a non-custodial sentence. But I can’t even say that will be the case.
“But we have to know that this complainant is fully repaid. By what date, what time we are speaking of? What timeline are we speaking of?
“It can’t be just that we release him and give him time to go and dispose of assets. Too much time has passed. Too many years have passed,” the judge said, as she also pointed to Nelson’s age.
“So something has to be put in place sooner rather than later,” Justice Beckles said.
The judge further noted this was the time that Nelson’s friends and those, according to his character witness, whom he had helped should step forward.
“I don’t know how good all the friends he has are but some of them might have to friend up and take some money out of their own pockets. If that is what he used to do for people, maybe somebody needs to come forward and help him. Those same people that he helped,” she said.
“So let those who have ears to hear, hear,” she said.
Justice Beckles further said if the court was minded to consider part repayment, it would have to be at least three-quarters of the $855 000. In addition, the complainant would also have to agree to give Nelson time to repay the remainder of the money.
The matter was then adjourned until July 16 when a doctor is expected to testify about Nelson’s health challenges.
Nelson was represented by attorney Daquane Nedd. (HLE)