The Court of Appeal Thursday dismissed an application for bail by former premier, Michael Misick and two other senior government ministers pending the hearing of their appeals against their convictions and sentences.
In May, Misick was sentenced to four years and 26 days in prison after he was found guilty on February 4, 2026, on three bribery counts connected to government land and development deals.
Michael Misick (File Photo)
Two other government ministers McAllister ‘Piper’ Hanchell was sentenced to three years while former attorney general, Thomas Chalmers Misick, the brother of the former premier, received a prison sentence of four years.
In a 21-page written judgment, Court of Appeal President Justice Alice Yorke-Soo Hon ruled that none of the three applicants had demonstrated the exceptional circumstances required by law to justify bail after conviction.
The Appeal Court held that the applicants had failed to establish that their appeals were likely to succeed or that there was a real risk they would serve all or a substantial part of their prison sentences before the appeals are heard.
‘The applicants have been unable to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, that their appeals are likely to succeed, or that there will be a real risk of injustice that they will serve their sentences, or a substantial portion of it, before the hearing and determination of their appeals,’ the Court of Appeal judge said.
The Court of Appeal in reaching its decision, noted that once a defendant has been convicted, there is no automatic right to bail. Rather, the discretion to grant bail pending appeal is exercised sparingly and only where exceptional circumstances exist.
Justice Yorke-Soo Hon reviewed authorities from across the Caribbean and the Commonwealth and concluded that the applicants must demonstrate either that their appeals have a strong likelihood of success or that justice would otherwise require their release pending appeal.
‘There must be sufficient material before the court to hold that there is or at least a strong chance of success before bail is granted,’ she said in the judgement.
In rejecting the former premier’s application, the Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the lengthy delay before trial amounted to an abuse of process requiring his release. It found that the issue had already been considered during earlier proceedings and noted that the trial judge had already reduced his sentence by three years to reflect the breach of his constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time.
The Court of Appeal also rejected submissions that his sentence was manifestly excessive, finding that the trial judge had carefully considered the seriousness of the offending, the level of planning involved, the amount of money received and the abuse of public trust before imposing sentence.
It rejected the argument of Misick’s attorney, Willin Belliard, that his client’s sentence should have been treated similarly to those imposed on former ministers Floyd Hall and Clayton Greene.
But the Court of Appeal ruled that the cases were materially different, noting that Hall’s offending involved approximately US$775,000 on a single bribery count, while Misick’s convictions involved more than US$17 million and reflected a significantly greater level of culpability.
In the case of Hanchell, the Court ruled that the trial judge had properly considered his individual role in the offences, his personal mitigation, his health, his previous good character and the lengthy delay before trial. It concluded that no error had been demonstrated in the sentencing exercise that would justify granting bail pending appeal.
However, Justice Yorke-Soo Hon said that Hanchell’s lawyers, had failed at this stage to demonstrate precisely where the trial judge had erred or to provide sufficient material to establish that the appeal was likely to succeed.
‘The possibility that any of the grounds are likely to succeed will not do. It must be demonstrated where the trial judge went wrong,’ the judge wrote in her ruling.
In relation to the former attorney general, the Court noted that his nine grounds of appeal raised complex legal issues concerning money laundering, concealment of criminal property, the required mental element for conviction and the interpretation of the Proceeds of Crime legislation.
The applicants also relied heavily upon their compliance with strict bail conditions over the past 13 to 15 years, their deep family and community ties in Turks and Caicos Islands and their willingness to submit to even stricter bail conditions, including electronic monitoring.
But the Court of Appeal rejected those submissions, ruling that such considerations did not amount to exceptional circumstances.