Black bids to delay start of jail sentence

Disgraced British media mogul Conrad Black’s plea for an emergency delay to the start of his six-and-a-half year jail sentence for fraud should be denied, US prosecutors have said.

Lord Black of Crossharbour was ordered to report to prison by March 3 after a jury found he illegally received £1.7m (€2.3m) as they convicted him of three counts of fraud and one of obstruction of justice last year.

US prosecutors said that an emergency request by lawyers for the 63-year-old former owner of the Daily Telegraph that he should remain free on bail pending the outcome of an appeal should be denied.

In documents filed with the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday afternoon, the prosecutors said Black and his co-defendants were engaging in a “herculean” effort in their “nearly insurmountable” task of persuading the court of their argument for a reversal or a new trial.

Prosecutors, led by US district attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, wrote: “Because none of the issues raised satisfies their burden to show a substantial question likely to result in reversal or a new trial, the motion should be denied.

“Throughout their motion appellants engage in herculean efforts to make what is essentially a sufficiency of the evidence appeal – and a weak one at that - appear to be something else.”

The 47-page document went on: “In the process, they omit important facts, misdescribe others, attribute arguments to the government it never made, and assume this court will view the evidence in the light most favourable to their defence.

“Appellants attempt, for example, to portray a straightforward honest services fraud charge – which the district court described as ’not at the periphery but near the core of prohibited ’scheme[s] ... to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,” – as a novel or even ’dangerous’ theory presenting substantial legal questions.

“Appellants realise the nearly insurmountable task ahead in convincing the court that their sufficiency arguments present substantial questions likely to result in reversal or a new trial.”