Quizzical

The 100 year anniversary of what, @Barlow? The motorcycle TT started in 1907, on the St John's course, and moved to the Mountain course in 1911. Are you suggesting the last TT will be 16 years ago (or 12 if you don't recognise the early years as 'true' TT)?

On the face of it, you're right. Seems to be one person brought in for one specific case, so no far-reaching consequences, other than for everyone involved in that case, on both sides, and the taxpayers who funded it. But... If it could happen in this case, is there not an argument it could have happened with other appointments of external legal professionals to fulfil temporary roles? If there was confusion or a lack of understanding over how to appoint and deploy external counsel in 'acting' rules in this case, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the same confusion existed when others were appointed. You'd imagine, after that judgment was handed down, there are a few lawyers (and their clients) who will want to ask questions regarding cases where a temporary prosecutor or deemster was involved, just in case the procedures got a bit mixed up in those as well.

The implications of this ruling on other cases are yet to be seen and may be limited. To me, the point you quote is the most important. While this was a specific and perhaps peculiar situation which gave rise to procedural confusion, it could be argued that it sheds light on how our criminal justice system may at times operate. It suggests that parts of it may not always run as they should - constitutionally - and some people/organisations have become accustomed to doing things in a certain way which, when scrutinised, may not entirely in line with expectations. Whatever the specific consequences of this ruling, however limited in terms of impact, I believe it is further evidence of the need for a significant inquiry into the operation of the AG's Chambers and its operational relationship with external bodies, including the Constabulary and, as we have seen from other recent high profile cases, Government departments. Part of the remit of any such inquiry should be to see to what extent the Chambers appear to be 'instructed' on how to act (i.e., to pursue a prosecution or submit an appeal) by external bodies, contrary to its purpose and constitutional role. I'm sure it never, ever happens (if you ignore the Deemster's appraisal quoted above), but it would be very reassuring to have that independently verified.

There is, as I took the friendly advice I was given and messaged @Truthsayer and they have politely responded. As they posted would happen, a judgment was handed down yesterday. Is it monumental news? You can all probably judge for yourselves. Choice quote: "I am satisfied that the court below has erred in law in coming to the decision that Mr Green KC was authorised to institute these criminal proceedings. The effect of his lack of authority is that they are a nullity. I therefore quash the ruling of 22 November 2022 and declare that the criminal proceedings purportedly commenced on 13 May 2022 against all the Defendants are a nullity." The whole thing is at https://judgments.im/content/Judgment 110523.pdf Whether a significant criminal case being nullified due to what some may see as a lack of understanding of the law and processes within government is monumental or not is really a matter of opinion. Personally, I think it's the type of thing that might warrant a small mention in the island's media, as the original case did, but perhaps it's no big deal...

Being entirely honest, I generally find the forum informative, engaging, and entertaining. There's a lot of stuff that would never see the light of day if left to the established/establishment media, some great debates, and some genuine laughs. It is a shame, however, that some threads can descend into squabbling and name calling so quickly, and there seem to be so many angry people who just want an opportunity to shout at someone - before Manx Forums they probably screamed at seagulls on the prom for being 'too beaky'. I mean, look at my first posting experience - an immediate attack. The balance, however, has been positive, with other posters being reasonable and helpful. The forum is a good thing. Any way, back on topic, I'm looking forward to further developments on the @Truthsayer post later today. Fingers crossed.

Thank you for clarifying. I hope the judgment makes it to the website - not all do, and the basis for selection is unclear.

Well, that and members disappearing down a rabbit hole of their own indignation if anyone proffers a differing opinion or posts in a way that they wouldn't. Sometimes it seems members are less interested in the topic and more concerned about the format and structure of the post. Oh, and name calling and cheap shot scoring. I say this with love, of course, as a longstanding visitor to, and fan of, the forum.

That's a great suggestion, thanks. Should have thought about that before posting anything and apparently becoming something of a McMurphy in this asylum.

Couldn't agree more. Lack of media resources, experience, and knowledge means a number of issues go unreported, plus, as you say, there is a fear in a small community like this of rocking the boat. The post by @Truthsayer, which I acknowledge could be nonsense, refers to matters some six years ago. It is difficult, especially in a small community, to suppress the truth forever, so I had hoped this might signal that some light was about to be cast on what was, if true, a very dark moment in Manx legal history. I'm well aware of the wild speculation, spinning rumour mill, and wilful misinterpretation of entirely innocent situations that makes the Isle of Man what it is, so I have treated what I was told with a pinch of salt, but never entirely dismissed it. As mentioned previously, my sole reason for joining the forum and posting was to see whether there was any commonality between what @Truthsayer claimed to know about and what I have heard. Given their silence since posting, it's probably fair to conclude there was nothing to it, or at least nothing they are currently able to put into the public forum. So perhaps what I was told was untrue and deliberately scurrilous.

Thank you for the warm welcome to Manx Forums. It was actually the fact that this subject had been largely ignored which prompted me to join and post. I've been a long time reader of the forums, but have stayed away from posting due to often unpleasant and unnecessarily derogatory and confrontational attitudes displayed. However, the post from @Truthsayer that I originally quoted caught my attention as it fits with a rumour I've heard about staffing issues within the AG's Chambers. I waited a few days after it was posted to see if anyone else would add anything or if the OP would add more detail. When that didn't happen, I joined purely to see if there was any additional information and whether that post referred to the same situation as the one I have been made aware of. It seemed like a pragmatic and balanced way of engaging. Unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable sharing more details of the rumour I have heard as it could be untrue and the nature of the allegations, if repeated here without proof, would leave me (and potentially the forum?) open to libel action. From even the briefest details, individuals are clearly identifiable and the claims would reduce their standing in the mind of any right-thinking person. And I have no proof. None. That's really why I wanted to here more from the OP, or others, as it would come as a great relief if the story is about to be made public and the appropriate action taken. I know realise that taking an interest in a post on a public forum and attempting to join the conversation, to try and learn more, was an unforgiveable error and an insult to all users. I can only apologise to you all, and especially to you @offshoremanxman for any distress.

Can't really disagree with that assessment, and that knowledge makes it difficult to get worked up about anything. What's the point in caring when it won't lead to anything being done in the public interest? That said, I'd really like to know a bit more about what @Truthsayer has heard on this, as I have heard some interesting (deeply, deeply concerning) stories regarding staffing in this area.

Any more information on this @Truthsayer? It sounds extremely serious. Any idea when it might become public?