In December 2009, Michael Ashcroft, who cheated his way into the House of Lords in 2000, brought an action for libel against the Independent newspaper for publishing two articles in November that year (“Ashcroft’s Bank lent millions to disgraced Premier” and “How Ashcroft became the banker to paradise”) which the billionaire Conservative peer considers defamatory.

The Independent alleges that Ashcroft used his vast wealth to buy influence in the Turks and Caicos Islands and advance his business interests.

In 2008 a report by the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee set the alarm bells ringing. The Committee believed corruption on the islands was rampant.

The following year, an inquiry by Sir Robin Auld (which paved the way for direct rule from London) laid bare the finances of the corrupt former Premier, Michael Misick whose sticky fingers were everywhere. He was massively enriching himself, doing deals with developers.

In 2007 Misick borrowed $5m from the British Caribbean Bank which is run by Andrew Ashcroft, the peer’s son. Three years earlier, Misick borrowed $4,720,000 from Coral Square Limited, a company apparently connected with Michael Ashcroft.

Michael Ashcroft’s libel action has now been before the High Court twice this year (see attachments). These preliminaries aim to establish precisely what the Independent is accusing Ashcroft of doing which is corrupt.

In the July 2011 judgment, Mr Justice Eady identified the nub of the case, writing:

An inference is invited that the Claimant (Michael Ashcroft) authorised a loan by the British Caribbean Bank evidenced by a document dated 14 March 2007 signed by his son Andrew Ashcroft. His authorisation is to be inferred from the size of the loan, the fact that Mr Misick was the Premier, the fact that earlier loans had been made to him in 2004, and the potential gains to be made by Michael Ashcroft’s commercial interests in the Turks and Coaicos Islands from supporting a corrupt Premier. But the key assertions underlying all this are Michael Ashcroft’s “ownership and control” of the British Caribbean Bank and the claim that his son was “in thrall” to him and “acts in accordance with his will".

The Judge goes on to say that the Independent

needs to give “their best particulars of Michael Ashcroft’s role in granting the loan and, specifically, of the nature of the favourable terms.”

…it cannot suffice to put forward a case to the effect that Michael Ashcroft simply must have been involved in some way or another. They need to come off the fence and decide exactly what the charge against the Claimant is.

Before the case can go to trial, the Judge tells the Independent they’ve got to get their act together. Any allegations against Ashcroft, he says, must be made “clearly and unequivocally".

If the Independent is able to advance a properly pleaded case against Michael Ashcroft, to the effect that he did personally attempt to buy influence through authorising the $5m loan and/or the funding of Mr Misick’s mansion and his “lavish lifestyle”, and so on, then the Independent should be able to plead that Ashcroft’s denials of the relevant misconduct were dishonest.

According to the Guardian, in 2009 Ashcroft controlled or owned around 74.7% of British Caribbean Bank Holdings. He resigned from the Board on 5 May this year. The British Caribbean Bank, run by his son Andrew, is a subsidiary. It seems inconceivable that a $5 million loan to the Premier of the Turks and Caicos would not pass across Michael Ashcroft's desk for approval.

As well as being a citizen of the UK and Belize, Ashcroft is, of course, a “belonger” of the Turks and Caicos Islands, a much sought-after status which gives him the right to buy land.

Michael Misick and other corrupt politicians were selling, for their personal gain, permissions to buy Crown land. Crucially, they also had a hand in deciding who could become a “belonger”.

The extent of the corruption, described as pervasive, is detailed in the report this month (July 2011) from Transparency International (see attachment).

The scale of the abuse is breathtaking. Losses to the Turks and Caicos Islands Treasury run into billions of dollars.

The new Crown Land policy, published in draft in August 2010, reveals that

Under the former Crown land policy, which came into effect on 2 November 2005, substantial discounts were made available on vast tracts of land at a considerable cost to the government in the billions of dollars and allowed significant areas of heritage land to be permanently transferred into private and corporate freehold ownership.

A complete set of Crown Land maps, published last year, graphically shows the magnitude of the plunder. The TC Weekly News reported

…a huge hike in land allocation during Michael Misick’s six year administration had massively depleted supplies. Now just 10 per cent of Grand Turk’s usable Crown land is left while only 20 percent of Providenciales’ original land is remaining.

And a new Crown Land Allocation Register shows when the land was transferred into private ownership from the Crown and who received the land allocation.

While the people of TCI marvel at this jaw dropping transparency, the Special Prosecutor, Helen Garlick, prepares charges of corruption. She told the TCI Press that six to ten people will be charged "this summer" in connection with corruption alleged in the 2009 Auld Inquiry report.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Officer Minister, Henry Bellingham, who visited Providenciales on 14 July, tells Islanders that change is on the way.

He says everyone (Michael Ashcroft please note) must pay their taxes in full and on time.

He talks of a new “fair and transparent process for the acquisition of Belongership” and of robust measures to safeguard Crown land and protected areas.

And he is “encouraged” by the steps being taken by the Special Prosecutor, Helen Garlick, who is, we are told, making good progress. (see attachment).

When the charges are laid against the corrupt former politicians who knows what will emerge?

Whatever happens, we can be quite certain that the ever litigious Michael Ashcroft will, if the law allows him, continue to use threats of actions for defamation to stifle legitimate comment about his business activities and how he makes his millions.

However, in two crucial respects, things have moved on since Ashcroft launched his action for defamation against the Independent in December 2009.

We now know how he cheated his way into the House of Lords in 2000. And, in March 2010, he was forced to reveal he was a tax dodger.

The old legal maxim runs: He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

By that measure alone, Ashcroft’s case against the Independent deserves to fail.

Attachments:

2010-07-02+CLAR+press+release[1].pdf	[Crown Land Allocation Press Release]	31 Kb
Ashcroft v Foley [2011] EWHC 292 (QB).pdf	[Ashcroft v Independent February 2011]	122 Kb
Ashcroft_v_Independent_(1.7.11)_(Approved).pdf	[Ashcroft v Independent July 2011]	171 Kb
bellingham-tci-speech.pdf	[Henry Bellingham speech]	466 Kb
crownlandpolicy8-4-10.pdf	[Crown Land Policy]	249 Kb
crown_land_allocation_register_edition3.pdf	[Crown Land Allocation Register 3rd edition]	3128 Kb
TCI_NIS_Study.pdf	[Transparency International report on the Turks and Caicos]	2489 Kb