The Government of St Kitts and Nevis has secured a legal victory after the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council refused an application by Michael Prest for permission to appeal.

The decision, issued on February 3, 2026, confirms an earlier ruling by the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, which had dismissed Prest’s application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

Prest was the appellant in the matter, while the respondents included the Director of Public Prosecutions, Corporal Randolph Diamond and the Magistrate of District “C”.

Prest challenged arrest warrants issued in connection with allegations of fraudulent conversion of US$2.53 million. 

The case centred on whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling it had no jurisdiction to hear the larceny matter because it was classified as a criminal cause or matter under section 33(3)(a) of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (St Christopher and Nevis) Act. 

The appeal also raised questions about whether Prest’s constitutional rights were breached by the application of that provision and whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs.

The matter stems from July 21, 2021, when the Magistrate of District “C”, after receiving evidence on oath from Corporal Diamond, issued two arrest warrants for Prest in connection with alleged breaches of the Larceny Act.

On August 27, 2021, Prest applied for leave to seek judicial review, requesting orders to quash the magistrate’s decision to issue the warrants. 

He also sought interim orders to stay execution of the arrest warrants and to restrain publication of their existence pending the outcome of the judicial review.

A High Court judge initially granted leave for judicial review and approved the interim relief, staying execution of the warrants. However, the respondents later applied to set aside the order. After considering submissions from both sides, the judge set aside the leave for judicial review, lifted the interim orders and struck out Prest’s fixed date claim.

Prest then appealed to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal. During proceedings, the court raised the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to determine the appeal under section 33(3)(a), which states that no appeal shall lie from any order made in a criminal cause or matter. The court directed the parties to file additional submissions on the issue.

In its April 16, 2024 judgement, the Court of Appeal ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, determining it fell within the statutory prohibition. The court also indicated that even if it had jurisdiction, it would have dismissed the appeal.

The Privy Council upheld that position, ruling that Prest’s application did not raise an arguable point of law and confirming the matter constituted a criminal cause. The order further stated that, subject to any submissions filed by Prest within 21 days of receiving the order, he would be required to pay the respondents’ legal costs, to be assessed if not agreed. The respondents would also have the opportunity to file submissions in response if necessary.

Attorney General Garth Wilkin previously represented the Magistrate of District “C” in the matter, supported by Solicitor General Simone Bullen-Thompson. Officials said the Attorney General has consistently maintained the Government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and defending lawful state actions.

The matter was heard before Lords Patrick Hodge and Philip James Sales and Lady Vivien Rose.