LoneWolf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 To be fair, he probably is as good an authority on the administration of government departments as anyone else, if not better. How interesting. This is a skill which, presumably, he has developed during whatever spare time he has had available to him after wielding the sword of justice. There is certainly nothing in his employment record which suggests he has practised as a management consultant or similar. He must be a very bright chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 One of the areas of law he would have studied would have been administrative law which deals with local and national government practice (as opposed to constitutional law, which deals with the framework within which local and national government operate) . Given that, he is also part of the larger government machine (no matter how you argue the judiciary are separate, administratively, it is still part of the whole machine). Therefore, I would hazard that he does have half a clue about administrative matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 he does have half a clue about administrative matters. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Post of the decade!! Brilliant Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 ...and would be the final arbiter in any dispute about the vires of any government department. Edited to add: Nice one AT, again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 ...and would be the final arbiter in any dispute about the vires of any government department. But not their competence. Also doubtful he would be the final arbiter in disputes about vires. MEA case ring any bells? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The MEA case is all about vires, did they have the power to borrow without Treasury consent? Competence plays a large part in whether a government department is acting within its powers, because it should be competent to know where those boundaries exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The MEA case is all about vires, did they have the power to borrow without Treasury consent? Competence plays a large part in whether a government department is acting within its powers, because it should be competent to know where those boundaries exist. and you believe the final arbiter in that case is the High Bailiff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Who knows where it will end up, but that doesn't mean that MM is unqualified to comment upon the competence of government departments. The MEA case is a huge case and quite important from a legal point of view, but MM has made comment (obiter) on the competence of a government department; he is quite entitled and qualified to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Who knows where it will end up, but that doesn't mean that MM is unqualified to comment upon the competence of government departments. The MEA case is a huge case and quite important from a legal point of view, but MM has made comment (obiter) on the competence of a government department; he is quite entitled and qualified to do so. The MEA case is starting in the High Court so I guess that rules out the High Bailiff.[not the final arbiter then?] Regarding the High Bailff's comments about the DTL in the Julie Corkhill case I would have to disagree with you. He made a generalised comment about the competence of an entire Department based on his opinion that errors were made handling one grant application. With all due respect to him, while he may well be entitled to make such sweeping statements, it clearly isnt possible to gauge the competence of an entire department based on one incident and to do so hardly enhances his credibility. It was a seedy little case and remarks directed at Civil Servants, who were not on trial, have done little if anything to make it less seedy. No doubt the comments will grab a headline or two in the local rags. I like Albert Tatlock's post on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 As Government Advocate Moyle has also been part of the Executive. I think examples should be made of powerful people - they should get harsher treatment, not lenient treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I think the High Balliff sits for most of the legal appeals on government decisions. Its only when there is no statutory recourse that it goes up to the High Court in a Petition of Doleance. I think ... anyone know better? As a result I would imagine he gets to hear, and make a ruling on, complaints about civil servants cocking up quite alot! In the Judgement MM has quite a knock at the prosecution: saying they presented their evidence packs very badly and at one point seeming to point out where a "competent prosecuter" would/should have taken the case ... implying the actual prosecution didn't do this and wasn't competent ... OUCH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 At the end of the day she'll get what we all expected she would get, a fine and that'll be that. He won't be implicated, when we all know that he must have been aware what was happening and was happy for her to deal with things. There's still more to come regarding the civil case and the builders but quite frankly if it's before MM, which I suspect it will be she'll probably get away with it again. MM has done as much as he possibly could within the law to look after her and RC and I wonder why we're all surprised. The people of Onchan should be relieved he's not standing because he might have got back and would you want someone who's either that devious or that stupid (and he must be one or the other) to represent you. They worked the systems as well as they could, with the collusion of others at the top of departments it would seem to me and they would have got away with it and we'd have known nothing if they'd only paid the builders - this is where the arrogance comes in, she/they thought that the builders were so impressed with working for the CM that they would be a push over, what they didn't seem to realise was that the builders (who I think have been extremely naive) couldn't afford not to be paid - now we're into the civil case. I'm still interested in all this, but quite frankly I don't think I can expend much more of my life getting excited about something that I can't do anything about. As to this being a very small case and it's not Watergate - well yes LW you're right, in the grand scheme of things it is only small, but it points to the heart of our Government, showing the type of people that are representing the Island and by the way, look where Watergate ended up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Oh what fun we had!! To make the experience even more memorable Chief Minister Richard Corkill and Deputy High Bailiff Michael Moyle joined in the fun event to play the part of the 'judges' committing the 'prisoners' to the Douglas Bay tower. IoM Today April 2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.