IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Ham_N_Eggs]

20 minutes ago, MrGarrison said:

Hooper is the first LV member to accept a Ministry

No he's not: Karran was the education minister; and Beecroft was the Health Minister.

[Zarley]

On 8/19/2022 at 6:03 PM, Two-lane said:

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.
 

Upon reading the bit above in bold, I had the unbidden mental vision of Ashford, in a vampiric trance, attempting to put his laptop through his industrial strength shredder in order to get rid of an email. 

[Two-lane]

Chancery and Ordinary Claims listings published on 22 Aug 2022 at 08:36
The information below is believed to be correct as at the date and time above.
Date Time Reference Claimant Defendant Purpose of Listing

25 Aug 22 10:00 ORD22/0016 &
ORD22/0017
Department of Health and Social
Care Rosalind Ranson Directions 1 hour Corlet

[Mistercee]

1 hour ago, Two-lane said:

Chancery and Ordinary Claims listings published on 22 Aug 2022 at 08:36
The information below is believed to be correct as at the date and time above.
Date Time Reference Claimant Defendant Purpose of Listing

25 Aug 22 10:00 ORD22/0016 &
ORD22/0017
Department of Health and Social
Care Rosalind Ranson Directions 1 hour Corlet

Link here:

 

chancery.pdf (courts.im)

[2112]

Are the DHSC trying to scupper the tribunals hearing? Or trying to dictate the remit of the tribunal itself - in effect censoring it?  I really can’t understand what they are doing or trying to achieve, as it’s quite possible it will explode in their face, and cost the taxpayers even more. 

[Jarndyce]

4 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Or trying to dictate the remit of the tribunal itself - in effect censoring it?

This, I believe.   Chairman wants to consider the documentation submitted during tribunal - tribunal has already found in Dr Ranson’s favour, so this is a separate consideration to look at lateness of documents, incompleteness of documents and alleged “adjusting” of documents to confirm the DHSC narrative (ie, the metadata issue).   DHSC is appealing to High Court to attempt to put this outside the remit of the tribunal, ie, this will never be considered by the tribunal, ergo never seen in the public domain.

Transparency and openness in action…

[2112]

3 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

This, I believe.   Chairman wants to consider the documentation submitted during tribunal - tribunal has already found in Dr Ranson’s favour, so this is a separate consideration to look at lateness of documents, incompleteness of documents and alleged “adjusting” of documents to confirm the DHSC narrative (ie, the metadata issue).   DHSC is appealing to High Court to attempt to put this outside the remit of the tribunal, ie, this will never be considered by the tribunal, ergo never seen in the public domain.

Transparency and openness in action…

This is an assault on democracy. The courts and tribunals should be above government interference, both from COMIN, and individual Ministers. It seems that trying to prevent the truth some coming out, IOMG will bury the truth, and then claim that lessons will be learned …………… behind closed doors. 

[Declan]

1 hour ago, Mistercee said:

Link here:

 

chancery.pdf (courts.im)

I'm confused, that looks like the DHSC are suing Dr Ranson?

[2112]

21 minutes ago, Declan said:

I'm confused, that looks like the DHSC are suing Dr Ranson?

You and many others.

Hooperman and his Department has made a complete dogs breakfast of things. Confusion reigns supreme. 

[Dirty Buggane]

If the Deemster sides with the DHSC and interfers with the Ranson case it shows just how deep the corruption is within the government, and we should be asking Westminster for help as it is looking like the government are against the electorate. Also collusion between heads of Civil Service are out of control and think they are above the law and are acting like it is a dictatorship. Which to all intent is is fast becoming.

[Shake me up Judy]

How can the Attorney General sit in judgement here ? In a case where he himself presumably instructed the claimant ? Will the Tribunal accept this judgement, and is it binding ? Should this hearing even go ahead ?

[Gladys]

46 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

How can the Attorney General sit in judgement here ? In a case where he himself presumably instructed the claimant ? Will the Tribunal accept this judgement, and is it binding ? Should this hearing even go ahead ?

The AG is not hearing the case,  it is Deemster Corlett. 

[Two-lane]

3 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

DHSC is appealing to High Court to attempt to put this outside the remit of the tribunal,

If the presenting of, or declining to present, certain documents in a Hearing is outside the remit of the tribunal, then which organisation/remit does these actions fall under?

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

I'm confused, that looks like the DHSC are suing Dr Ranson?

I think it's the bizarre way that appeals against Tribunal decisions are dealt with in the Manx Courts (and I suspect in the UK).  The Tribunal itself isn't supposed to defend its decision beyond the reasons it set out in the Decision, so the action is taken against the other party, in this case.  As it happens Ranson and her team would clearly be pleased for the disclosure hearing to happen, but you can see other situation where it could be more complicated.

There was a similar-ish case earlier this year against the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal brought by Lawrence Vaughan-Williams.  In that case the action was brought against the ADT who didn't appear for the reasons above, and the original complainant didn't want to carry on, so the defence ended up being mounted by the IOM Law Society. 

(The later case is quite extraordinary by the way and gives you the impression that the ADT, at the best, doesn't have any idea what its doing).

[Jarndyce]

9 hours ago, Two-lane said:

If the presenting of, or declining to present, certain documents in a Hearing is outside the remit of the tribunal, then which organisation/remit does these actions fall under?

None, if DHSC get the result they want…