IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[2112]

1 hour ago, quilp said:

The forensics are being carried out by Expol. Isn't this organisation run by retired local plod? Surely if there's any suspicion of criminality the local constabulary should be dealing with it?

I might get there early tomorrow...

Conflict of Interest? 

[quilp]

28 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Surely they'll just have been hired to help make DHSC's defence of the allegations made by Ranson's team. Whatever evidence Expol may be able to find will be presented as such?

ETA. One might wonder if it would be better to call in an off-island constabulary to investigate?

That was my first thought. Expensive. Presumably, Expol will be obligated to disclose all evidence but two independent sources would be desirable, comparatively. I've since heard that Expol appear to have a good reputation for forensic thoroughness. Can't see them having one foot in government, as some might (understandably) assume.

It's gonna be quite the drama, I reckon...

[Roger Mexico]

43 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

My simple (and quite possibly mistaken) opinion is that the members of an employment tribunal on the Isle of Man probably do not possess the sort of knowledge, qualifications, experience, skills or investigatory powers to look into what seem to be potentially quite serious allegations about government conduct in a tribunal case.  Indeed, if I understand correctly, there may even have been rumours that certain aspects of that alleged conduct might amount to fraud or other illegal behaviour.

Employment tribunal members are skilled at assessing evidence, particularly documentary evidence so there's quite a lot they will be able to do.  The question regarding possible fraud is whether they have the powers to investigate and how charging will be done.  I did wonder what powers a tribunal would have with regard to what is effectively contempt of court.

But what I think is actually going on here is more limited and was hinted at in Robertshaw and Moulton's conversations earlier, though I'm not sure they understood what was happening.  When they referred to the outcome of the disclosure hearing affecting what Ranson would get I was confused because the compensation in these cases is not based on that.  What might be affected however is Ranson's legal costs.  This piece on an English legal site explains:

Failure to comply with disclosure obligations can carry harsh penalties.  In addition to exercising their power to make an order for one party to pay the costs incurred by the other as a result of the failure to comply with disclosure duties, Tribunals can strike out the whole or part of a Claim or Response form.

In employment cases, normally both sides pay their own legal costs irrespective of outcome.  However if one side tries to cheat by withholding evidence, the Tribunal is entitled to make it pay the legal costs of both sides, presumably on the grounds that if the evidence was all known, the case might never have got to Court and a settlement might have happened without those legal fees being incurred.

So by carrying out this disclosure hearing the Tribunal is making an assessment about how costs should be awarded.  Of course it may well happen that during this investigation (which is done by examining witness and documents in the way tribunals normally operate) that all sort of other interesting things are discovered - when you start turning over stones, who knows what you'll find wriggling there.  But the purpose of the hearing is to discover just how much evidence was hidden or faked and on whose orders because that will dictate what decisions the Tribunal makes about costs (we already know that Ranson's side have said they will looking for a order to recover costs).  And all that is clearly within the tribunal's remit.

[Gladys]

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Employment tribunal members are skilled at assessing evidence, particularly documentary evidence so there's quite a lot they will be able to do.  The question regarding possible fraud is whether they have the powers to investigate and how charging will be done.  I did wonder what powers a tribunal would have with regard to what is effectively contempt of court.

But what I think is actually going on here is more limited and was hinted at in Robertshaw and Moulton's conversations earlier, though I'm not sure they understood what was happening.  When they referred to the outcome of the disclosure hearing affecting what Ranson would get I was confused because the compensation in these cases is not based on that.  What might be affected however is Ranson's legal costs.  This piece on an English legal site explains:

Failure to comply with disclosure obligations can carry harsh penalties.  In addition to exercising their power to make an order for one party to pay the costs incurred by the other as a result of the failure to comply with disclosure duties, Tribunals can strike out the whole or part of a Claim or Response form.

In employment cases, normally both sides pay their own legal costs irrespective of outcome.  However if one side tries to cheat by withholding evidence, the Tribunal is entitled to make it pay the legal costs of both sides, presumably on the grounds that if the evidence was all known, the case might never have got to Court and a settlement might have happened without those legal fees being incurred.

So by carrying out this disclosure hearing the Tribunal is making an assessment about how costs should be awarded.  Of course it may well happen that during this investigation (which is done by examining witness and documents in the way tribunals normally operate) that all sort of other interesting things are discovered - when you start turning over stones, who knows what you'll find wriggling there.  But the purpose of the hearing is to discover just how much evidence was hidden or faked and on whose orders because that will dictate what decisions the Tribunal makes about costs (we already know that Ranson's side have said they will looking for a order to recover costs).  And all that is clearly within the tribunal's remit.

It is perhaps wrong to call it an investigation, it is a hearing, a more passive process for the tribunal, but no less important. 

[cissolt]

9 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Surely they'll just have been hired to help make DHSC's defence of the allegations made by Ranson's team. Whatever evidence Expol may be able to find will be presented as such?

ETA. One might wonder if it would be better to call in an off-island constabulary to investigate?

Asking former officers, who are drawing government pensions to investigate government wrong doings has always worked so well in the past.  How did we get on with the abbostwood saga again?

[Ghost Ship]

13 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Employment tribunal members are skilled at assessing evidence, particularly documentary evidence so there's quite a lot they will be able to do.  The question regarding possible fraud is whether they have the powers to investigate and how charging will be done.  I did wonder what powers a tribunal would have with regard to what is effectively contempt of court.

But what I think is actually going on here is more limited and was hinted at in Robertshaw and Moulton's conversations earlier, though I'm not sure they understood what was happening.  When they referred to the outcome of the disclosure hearing affecting what Ranson would get I was confused because the compensation in these cases is not based on that.  What might be affected however is Ranson's legal costs.  This piece on an English legal site explains:

Failure to comply with disclosure obligations can carry harsh penalties.  In addition to exercising their power to make an order for one party to pay the costs incurred by the other as a result of the failure to comply with disclosure duties, Tribunals can strike out the whole or part of a Claim or Response form.

In employment cases, normally both sides pay their own legal costs irrespective of outcome.  However if one side tries to cheat by withholding evidence, the Tribunal is entitled to make it pay the legal costs of both sides, presumably on the grounds that if the evidence was all known, the case might never have got to Court and a settlement might have happened without those legal fees being incurred.

So by carrying out this disclosure hearing the Tribunal is making an assessment about how costs should be awarded.  Of course it may well happen that during this investigation (which is done by examining witness and documents in the way tribunals normally operate) that all sort of other interesting things are discovered - when you start turning over stones, who knows what you'll find wriggling there.  But the purpose of the hearing is to discover just how much evidence was hidden or faked and on whose orders because that will dictate what decisions the Tribunal makes about costs (we already know that Ranson's side have said they will looking for a order to recover costs).  And all that is clearly within the tribunal's remit.

Reading the decision again I think you are right that the disclosure hearing is primarily to clarify whether the respondent's failure to comply fully with disclosure should impact on the assessment of remedies and potential awarding of costs in the Dr Ranson case.

It would appear not to be intended to go any deeper than that...

... which would be a pity because as the tribunal said at para 28 "... there might have been a serious miscarriage of justice because so many documents were not produced... "

It strikes me that at the very least it still requires an appropriately qualified and competent investigation to determine what happened here.   If evidence was not disclosed when it should have been, and in the knowledge that it would impact on the outcome of the tribunal, I'd have thought that that might potentially amount to serious criminal offence.  

But of course, nobody knows what happened...

[Roger Mexico]

A longer piece by Sam Turton on yesterday's hearing went up this morning which contains some interesting extra information that came out yesterday.  One interesting thing is that DHSC changed their legal representation to Callin Wild from the AG's Chambers only recently, whether the latter refused to cooperate or whether it's just a time-wasting exercise is another issue (the Deemster was not impressed).

There was also a revealing remark where the DHSC's lawyer said: "her client’s concern [was] that the tribunal had overstepped its remit by ‘compelling’ the DHSC to produce evidence".  A court of law that doesn't have the power to compel evidence is going to be a fairly ineffective one.  This looks like more of the upper ranks of the civil service's core belief that they are above the law.

[Ghost Ship]

Actually, reading that report I can understand* the DHSC's position.  It goes back to the point I was trying to make (obviously very badly!) yesterday as to whether or not the ET had the jurisdiction to hold such an investigation (sorry) hearing and whether they were the appropriate body to do so.

 

*  PLEASE EVERYBODY!  I'm not saying I agree with it - I'm saying I understand it, which is entirely different

[WTF]

2 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

 

 

*  PLEASE EVERYBODY!  I'm not saying I agree with it - I'm saying I understand it, which is entirely different

 

[BriT]

45 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

A longer piece by Sam Turton on yesterday's hearing went up this morning 

It also includes this statement “Returning to the matter of the appeals, Mrs Clough said that if a stay on proceedings wasn’t granted, there was a ‘real risk of injustice’ and said that the hearings should not go ahead before the appeals are heard. 

She added that if the appeals were held, and were successful after the tribunal, it would prejudice her client and wouldn’t allow statements already made before the tribunals to be taken back, in essence it would be ‘too late’.”

Isn’t that tantamount to saying “We wouldn’t have lied if we’d have known that you’d be looking for evidence that we lied at a later date”

Edited August 26, 2022 by BriT

[MrGarrison]

29 minutes ago, BriT said:

Isn’t that tantamount to saying “We wouldn’t have lied if we’d have known that you’d be looking for evidence that we lied at a later date”

Pretty much yes. Why would you ever wish to take back things that it’s been documented that you categorically said at an employment Tribunal? It’s almost like saying can we forget about the whole end result thing and run the tribunal all over again where we’ll try to contest it competently this time! 

[cissolt]

I guess Karen Malone has to pay for this herself?  Seems quite short notice to arrange her own lawyer.

Also in court was John Aycock, representing former DHSC chief executive Karen Malone. Mr Aycock said that Mrs Malone was advised to appoint her own legal representative by the DHSC on August 2.

[2112]

Is the hearing still taking place? Or are the DHSC trying to bury an outcome?

[NoTailT]

Just now, 2112 said:

Is the hearing still taking place? Or are the DHSC trying to bury an outcome?

DHSC has lost.

[2112]

Nothing on the NPM yet.