Former Premier Ewart Brown would have to prove businessman David Bolden’s corruption allegations untrue “beyond a reasonable doubt” if he carried out his threatened private prosecution of Mr Bolden for perjury.However, if a private prosecution took place, this could give Mr Bolden the opportunity to expand on his allegations, made on oath at Supreme Court, that the Premier sought a personal stake in a private company pitching for Government business.Commenting on the topic of private prosecutions yesterday, former Attorney General Larry Mussenden who is not involved in the case and stressed he was speaking generally said: “A lawyer for the complainant, most likely a criminal defence lawyer as ‘prosecutor’ for the case, would have to call evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; the same standard as in a public prosecution. In other words, the Magistrate or jury would have to be satisfied so that they were sure of the guilt of the accused person.”As exclusively reported by The Royal Gazette this week, Mr Bolden testified in Supreme Court that Dr Brown made overtures, via an unnamed Government Minister, for a ten percent stake in Mr Bolden’s wireless technology enterprise.Mr Bolden went on to state that Dr Brown, who was Premier at the time of the alleged incident in November 2008, asked for his wife Wanda Henton Brown to be placed on the company board.He also told the court Dr Brown asked him on an earlier occasion for 60 percent of commissions he was earning for work on Bermuda’s public pension funds.Mr Bolden gave the evidence on June 8 in Supreme Court in answer to questions from the Chief Justice and prosecutor Susan Mulligan. He and his wife Antoinette were on trial at the time, accused of stealing from their company Emerald Capital International and laundering some of the money.They were cleared of those charges on Tuesday, but convicted of a further charge of misleading the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) over the finances of their Emerald Financial Group of companies. They have declined to speak to the media since the case concluded and they will be sentenced at a later date.The former Premier tried, unsuccessfully, to gag this newspaper from being able to report the allegations Mr Bolden made about him in court. When that failed, he was ordered by the Chief Justice to pay The Royal Gazette’s legal costs.Dr Brown then issued a statement describing Mr Bolden’s evidence as an “outrageous allegation” and a “total fabrication” and accusing him of committing perjury. He added: “I solemnly promise to do everything in my power under the law to ensure that Bolden faces the full force of the law.”Dr Brown has instructed lawyers Marc Daniels and Mark Pettingill of law firm Charter Chambers Bermuda to represent him, and Mr Pettingill said on Tuesday that Dr Brown wished to pursue a private prosecution against Mr Bolden.The former Premier claims his reputation has been damaged by the allegations. He is unable to sue for defamation because Mr Bolden’s allegations have legal protection due to the fact they were made in court.This newspaper was able to report them due to that same protection.Mr Mussenden, who has worked as a prosecutor, is now a defence lawyer and partner in law firm Mussenden Subair. He became one of the few lawyers in Bermuda to mount a private prosecution when, in 2003, he prosecuted a case at Magistrates’ Court on behalf of a person who alleged that he had been assaulted.Mr Mussenden explained: “Normally, when people feel there’s been a crime committed against them, they report it to the police. The police carry out an investigation and pass the file to the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP).“However, the police and DPP may feel there’s no reason to prosecute, on grounds such as there not being enough evidence to support the charge. A person can then instruct a private counsel to prosecute for them.“The procedure then flows in the normal form of a prosecution. An information or indictment containing the charges is laid before the court, but naming the aggrieved person as the informant rather than a police officer in the police prosecutions department.“A summons would be served to bring the other person to court and they would plead guilty or not guilty. If they plead not guilty a trial date would be set and the prosecution would be conducted by the private lawyer, most likely a criminal defence lawyer, not the DPP’s office.“The lawyer would have to call witnesses and evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; the same standard as in a public prosecution.”If the accused person is found guilty, explained Mr Mussenden, they would be subject to the same penalties as in a criminal case. For perjury, this is five years’ imprisonment..“If the person is found not guilty, then the informant can be subjected to (legal) costs just like the Crown is now if it’s found by the court that the case is unfounded, frivolous or made from any improper motive.”Mr Mussenden said the DPP does not necessarily have to reject the idea of a public prosecution before an individual can mount a private one. And, he said, under the Bermuda Constitution the DPP can take over and continue a private prosecution once it has begun, which may include dismissing it.Dr Brown’s lawyers declined a request for comment yesterday on the planned private prosecution or whether Dr Brown has asked the police and DPP’s office to look into a public prosecution.Mr Daniels said: “Dr Brown is considering his position and wishes to do all he can.”Mr Bolden’s lawyer, Saul Froomkin QC, did not respond to calls and e-mails yesterday.