IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Two-lane]

8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well you're in good company as Moulton made exactly the same mistake in that interview and had to be corrected by Hooper. 

Ah, ok. Maybe these are the relevant paras.:

846. Accordingly, an explanation is needed from an appropriate officer of the operation of the
automatic destruction system in 2020/21 and how it operated for electronic
communications. This is needed to understand whether there has been material non-
disclosure or destruction in this case but importantly to prevent a miscarriage of justice in
any future case involving any Government Department.
847. The parties are now required:
 to liaise each with the other to seek to agree the format for the Disclosure
Hearing and
 Having (hopefully) agreed this, they should confirm details to the Clerk
including a time-estimate so that a date can be fixed.

So I am now rather more confused, as they were told to agree to a meeting, which they did, and are now wanting to stop the meeting.

 

[Roger Mexico]

26 minutes ago, BriT said:

Hooper is arrogant and that will be his downfall. He will believe that he’s been given the right view of reality and that he’s cleverer than anyone else (when he isn’t). The arrogance shines through in that interview. Even when pushed about will heads roll as a result of this he suggests that there are no heads left to roll as they have already binned them off. So I assume that’s what he intends to hide behind. Yes it’s all terrible but Ashford was binned off (after a week of silly self preservation) and Magson and all the others have already been binned off too. 

I don't think he came across as arrogant, but as weak and indecisive.  It was almost like he was trying to pretend he was in a hostage video and being forced to say what he said and do what he did.  But he's the Minister and if he was unhappy with what was being proposed, he just has to refuse to sign the paperwork.  If he is told that he has to do so by CoMin/the CM/the Chief Secretary (in increasing order of likeliness) then he just tells them to sack him and make them own any decision.

As for claiming that everything would be revealed in Court, the simplest way to do that would be let the Disclosure Tribunal go ahead, not go running to the High Court hoping to stop it.  After all, as you imply, if all the offenders are no longer employed, those remaining have nothing to fear.

[Two-lane]

36 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

the media and public being free to attend the High Court hearing, does anyone know when it is? 

Well, it happens that I have time to spare... As someone who obviously knows about these things, do you know if the hearing is going to be listed somewhere at the top-level of www.courts.im?

[cissolt]

The wiping of Dr Ransons phone was obviously to hide any traces of evidence, i wonder who authorised that to happen?  We know civil servants can't act without approval.

[Gladys]

58 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

 

[1]  Hopper had some justification in saying that as legally one of the participants in the action, he had to be very careful about what he said, but that's not the same as sub judice, and everyone involved should stop saying that as if the words were some sort of magic spell that made all their troubles go away. 

Quite.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Two-lane said:

Well, it happens that I have time to spare... As someone who obviously knows about these things, do you know if the hearing is going to be listed somewhere at the top-level of www.courts.im?

The Courts Listings are here:

https://www.courts.im/

Normally they're updated on Friday for the following week, but while the criminal and appeal court ones have been, the other two haven't yet.  Any hearing would have to heard next week to stop the Disclosure Hearing happening the following  Tuesday (with Monday a Bank Holiday).  I would imagine it would appear on the Chancery & Ordinary Procedures list, though if it was just about case management it might appear on the Small Claims list.

Hooper was muttering something about this being Directions Hearing, but I would assume that could only happen after the High Court had accepted that the Tribunal should be put off, to hear the DHSC's case.   As we don't know what that is, who knows?  Presumably the Court  could decide there was nothing in DHSC's case and allow the Tribunal to continue.

Edited to add:  In a reply on Moulton's twitter, Hooper claimed:

Which of course they haven't been.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Roger Mexico

[BriT]

45 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

As for claiming that everything would be revealed in Court, the simplest way to do that would be let the Disclosure Tribunal go ahead, not go running to the High Court hoping to stop it.  After all, as you imply, if all the offenders are no longer employed, those remaining have nothing to fear.

He clouds that issue well. He says it will all come out in an open court while forgetting he’s actually been invited there to explain why they’re trying to stop a hearing in an open court which is a decision he then admits he signed off. 

[Roger Mexico]

It's worth saying that the Courts have had experience of the DHSC running to them to try to delay Tribunal proceedings, this happened in the Tinwell case as well.  Deemster Corlett at the end of his judgment said:

 57.Before leaving this matter I wish to make two observations. Firstly, I express considerable reservations on the use of the review procedure in this case. [...] A large amount of time and money seems to have been expended on arguing rather complex issues of law on review, only for them to be repeated before me. The legal issues have thus been argued now on three separate occasions. The process seems merely to have increased costs and led to nearly 6 months of delay, increasing the stress and anxiety on all sides.

58.My second observation flows from the first. Anyone examining the chronology of this case will be aghast at the length of time it is taking for the Respondent's employment grievances to be finally determined. I express the hope that her PD claim can now proceed to a final hearing on the merits at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that the Tribunal which has heard the matter to date and is fully seised of all the issues will do its best to achieve this aim.

[quilp]

1 hour ago, cissolt said:

The wiping of Dr Ransons phone was obviously to hide any traces of evidence, i wonder who authorised that to happen?  We know civil servants can't act without approval.

Whatever had been wiped is not irretrievable. Paedo's do it all the time thinking deletion will dispose of incriminating evidence only to find that all they'd deleted was still available. Court order would sort that out.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, cissolt said:

The wiping of Dr Ransons phone was obviously to hide any traces of evidence, i wonder who authorised that to happen?  We know civil servants can't act without approval.

The Tribunal accepted that this was a cock-up by Government Technology Services (though it said Ranson's reaction of sabotage was perfectly understandable).  The fact it happened at midnight on New Year 2020 might well suggest some more general problem or that her phone had been set up like that because technically she had only been employed initially for a year.  It's not clear if other people's phones were hit as well.

But even if that was true you would expect there to have been an enquiry into what happened.  Especially as an outbreak of Covid was announced at a quarter to midnight, causing a new lockdown.

[Gladys]

TBH, best not to speculate and actually see what the disclosure hearing was intended to achieve. 

Was it the quality of the evidence provided to the Tribunal, or to unearth some shenanigans? 

A further TBH,  does the Tribunal have the remit to inquire into the evidence submitted to it?  It has made a decision, the next step is to decide on the settlement, if the parties do not settle otherwise.

It is not that I think there may not be something to uncover here, but is the Tribunal the right forum?

[quilp]

Er, bit of speculation there, Gladys 😀

[Gladys]

Just now, quilp said:

Er, bit of speculation there, Gladys 😀

Not really. You have to bear in mind exactly what the Tribunal can do. That was why I asked the questions.  If it doesn't have the power to enquire into the evidence, then should it?  It is not even clear that evidence to the Tribunal was given under oath. 

I don't know the answer, which is why there is no speculation by me.

[Kopek]

.... but with the obsification that we are faced with, what other than speculation do we have at our means??? Are we to wait years for a official investigation ?

Cannan has promised a sweeping change in attitude, he could stop this appeal right now, is the temp head of civil service as powerful as the one they got rid of? What is Cannan thinking about this situati9on???

[Dirty Buggane]

2 hours ago, Kopek said:

 What is Cannan thinking about this situati9on???

1)Please god, make it go away. 

2)nothing he has not got a clue.

My bets' on the first