Jump to content

Trevor Baines


Recommended Posts

 

 

Well worth reading.

 

I agree, well worth a read. This bit is interesting, Paragraph 30:-

 

"In the course of a summing up which was not only discursive* rather than ordered but also heavily and unfortunately characterised by familiar asides to the jury, the judge took it upon himself to contrast the styles of counsel. He did so in terms which, although appreciative of both, might well be thought to bestow the greater approval and indeed admiration upon counsel for the prosecution."

 

Discursive = adjective: discursive1. digressing from subject to subject.

"students often write dull, secondhand, discursive prose"

 

So all a bit too chummy and casual?

 

As someone has already said, would we not be better having circuit judges for these more complicated trials?

 

Who pays the costs of this? I know John said it was a short statement but 5 Lords, a leaping? Can;t come cheap.......................

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 359
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

They could have just asked us instead. Saved all that hassle.

Don't get me wrong, I totally thought he was guilty. It's was just handy that we had someone to point at to demonstrate our 'harsh view of money launderers'. It is tricky though as the gent that Trev

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/conviction-against-advocate-jenny-holt-is-quashed-1-6449227   The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest Court of Appeal of the Isle of

Posted Images

Basically: judge got his summing up wrong, and, maybe favoured one advocate, the prosecutor, over the other, defending and was a bit chummy with the jury. Is that a fair summary GD4ELI. It is a remarkably short judgment for the Privy Council

 

I'm not sure that's quite right John. Certainly the Board[1] was pretty uncomplimentary about Turner's remarks to the jury, but they seem to imply that that wouldn't have been cause enough (see para 31). The actual grounds for allowing the appeal appear to me to be more subtle.

 

If you look at paragraphs 22-25 of the Judgment, the main problem was to do with Holt's defence. This mainly consisted of saying that she was unaware that the £400,000 that was being (fraudulently as it turned out) transferred from Hermitage, the Trust that Baines had had some control over, was the same £400,000 that was being transferred to her firm, Moroneys, to pay the fees of the London barristers[2]. This was clearly unconvincing to the jury. But to actually be guilty of what she was accused of, it also had to shown that Holt "knew or suspected, when continuing the arrangement for the transmission of the money to counsel, that it was the product of criminal conduct on the part of Baines". Not only did her defence fail to point this out, but Turner also didn't mention this condition in his summing up, and so the jury almost certainly didn't consider it.

 

And as the Board pointed out, there was plenty of evidence that Baines had bamboozled Holt and others as to whether he was entitled to borrow this money from the Trust. If Holt believed him then she was innocent of the charges and the jury should have been directed to consider that point. In fact, because her own side didn't make this argument either in the original trial or judging from the press report, at the appeal[3], it was even more important that the Deemster should have mentioned it in his summing up (see para 24).

 

No one comes out of this looking good[4]. Holt was clearly out of her depth and should never have been in charge of such an important case (she had no experience of criminal work) and the barristers seemed to have been only concerned with getting paid, irrespective of the money's source. The three Deemsters seem to have misunderstood what was a simple case in law and the Attorneys General's Office should arguably never have brought a criminal case that would be better handled by tribunal or in the civil courts. The costs to the taxpayer will be enormous.

 

[1] Apparently, according to Wiki, this is how the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council likes to be known when its at home.

 

[2] The sums of money that were required for the Baines' defence are eye-watering. According to paragraph 5:

 

 

In preparation for the criminal trial, earlier sums had been paid by the Baines to Moroneys for fees, but by July 2009 counsel's clerks were anxious to ensure that brief fees were paid up front as had been agreed and that machinery was in place to ensure

that refreshers were duly paid thereafter weekly in arrears. The sum required up front was £280,000, and the expectation was that over a roughly five week trial the refreshers would amount to something of the order of a further £200,000. In addition there were of course fees due to Moroneys.
[3] Why they didn't raise this point is a mystery and doesn't say much for her lawyers (naturally another imported QC was involved). Normally lawyers throw every argument they can think of (even if they contradict each other) into the courtroom, hoping some of them will stick. I can only assume that they didn't want the topic of the apparent illegality of the funds to be considered, because that would have led to questions as to why other people who were also aware of the situation didn't investigate more in the same way that Holt possibly should have.
[4] With the exception of prosecuting counsel, David Farrer QC, who was praised by the Board for his cross-examination and represented the Attorney General at the original trial, appeal and before the Board. Presumably this is the same David Farrer who also represented the AG recently under somewhat different circumstances (twice). Small world eh?
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Holt was clearly out of her depth and should never have been in charge of such an important case (she had no experience of criminal work) and the barristers seemed to have been only concerned with getting paid,

 

Mega surprise eh?

 

 

 

Again, going back 3 years.

Apparently, as reported in the Manx press they opined that "it would probably be OK" to borrow the money from the trust. I bet they did since they were about to trouser it!

Hung out to dry good and proper she was. If she can rebuild her career, she will probably make a spectacular lawyer because she will have some insight into what it is like to stand there alone accused while everything is running out of your control. Not many lawyers have had THAT experience.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wooley, while I sympathise with your empathy in the above situation that this girl has found herself in, would you......

 

Hire someone who has shown, at least, naiivety, in his/her past performance, to represent you in an important legal matter?

 

On the Island it will take some 10 to 20 years to outlive the situation she has found herself in but there are many opportunities in the finance, ebusiness sectors where legal advice is needed without a license to practice where she should be able to carve out a career for herself.

 

One can only wish her all the best for her future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 years later...
On 9/4/2010 at 2:27 PM, Max Power said:

I'm sorry to drag this up again but I can't help thinking about this every now and then.

 

Trevor Baines was convicted of opening bank accounts and depositing money on behalf of a client knowing them to be the proceeds of a criminal act. (Roys Poyjadjis inflated the share price of a software company on the New York Stock Exchange and engaged Baine's company to transfer money already in a Swiss Bank to the IoM)

Baines denied knowing this and said he thought that the money was the proceeds of Poyjadjis legitimate business activity.

IoM bank refused the deposit and transfer, Flemings Bank officials flew to meet Poyjadjis and were satisfied that he was legitimate and accepted the transfer.

 

I don't see that they could prove that he knew the funds were not legitimate. Flemings were probably better placed than he to know this yet they were not prosecuted!

His trial, coming at a time just after jurisdictions had been advised to clamp down on money laundering, seemed to show that there had been some false accounting to the tune of £20,000 to cover an invoice which Baines had raised for his services.

 

It seems that he has really been guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, his false accounting probably desrves some punishment? He also forgot to renew his firearms licence, again sesationalised to demonise him in the media! In my opinion he has been stitched up to show our wonderful tax haven in a good light to the international media, a sacrificial lamb so to speak. When you hear the local police boasting about how well they have done and how satisfied they are at sending an old man to jail you begin to wonder what is going on here!

 

The main problem I have, and it really concerns me, is how on earth could they jail him for six years AND take all of his assets leaving him penniless as if he was some major international drug baron?

 

Is it just me or do you think that our police and judicary are beyond control?

Hiii I know this is like ten years late hAhaha I’m his great niece and from all the story’s I have heard of him he deserve the jail time he got. He also knew he was laundering money and would frequently boast about it to his sister (my grandmother). He also stole a lot of money from my grandmothers mum abandoned her alone in the Isle of Man. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still see him around, up until a few months ago, so not sure he has abandoned anyone.  I never knew him personally,  but would just say that he took the son of someone I know under his wing while in prison and gave him advice and guidance  which helped to sort himself out. 

I am not defending him, but the lad's mother was very grateful to him.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I still see him around, up until a few months ago, so not sure he has abandoned anyone.  I never knew him personally,  but would just say that he took the son of someone I know under his wing while in prison and gave him advice and guidance  which helped to sort himself out. 

I am not defending him, but the lad's mother was very grateful to him.  

 

Yes he is still around. Lives just off Kingswood Grove . See him from time to time accessing his car. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...