IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Kopek]

.... and that Hooper would have the opportunity to use Alfs 'vulnerability' to turn it, the whole debacle, onto Alf doorstep????

[Gladys]

14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Andrew Langan-Newton mentioned at the weekend that this happened much less now than it used to, simply because the AGC employ so many lawyers with so many specialisms.  Why own a dog and then pay another one to bark for you?  But Departments are still entitled to get outside legal representation if they want to, though there may be certain processes to go through.

I am not talking about legal representation, but advice.  Not quite the same thing. 

[Kopek]

The Ags depts withdrawl from this case could be because they have had an input into the presentation of documents or because they believe that a criminal prosecution could result from the procedures of this Tribunal?

[Roger Mexico]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I am not talking about legal representation, but advice.  Not quite the same thing. 

Same principle though, and in normal circumstances the two will go together, if for example AGC don't have specialist expertise.

7 minutes ago, Kopek said:

The Ags depts withdrawl from this case could be because they have had an input into the presentation of documents or because they believe that a criminal prosecution could result from the procedures of this Tribunal?

Well quite, but in both cases you would expect them to have made the decision when the Disclosure Hearing was announced in May, not leave it till August.

[Kopek]

It still remains for the DHSC to reveal 'how many' backroom staff who have been involved in this subterfuge have4 been sidelined, not names, just a number???

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Same principle though, and in normal circumstances the two will go together, if for example AGC don't have specialist expertise.

In normal, ie non government situations, yes indeed. 

You could imagine a situation where the AG has said we cannot represent you, for whatever reason,  you will have to get other representation.  We can assist in instructing (there is a skill in itself in instructing lawyers) so the DHSC is being advised by the AG, but represented by an external firm. 

I could be dead wrong, but  I don't think it would ever be that the AG has either been ditched or has withdrawn entirely. 

[0bserver]

2 hours ago, quilp said:

 

 

It's fucking eye opening but none of it is surprising.

[John Wright]

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

We don't know if they did 'ditch' the AG's Chambers or they ditched the DHSC, though.  There are a number of possible scenarios:

1.  The AGC decided that the whole thing was bound to fail and wiped their hands of it.
2.  The AGC realised that they were an actor in whether documents were disclosed or not and so couldn't represent the DHSC legally as their interests might conflict.
3.  As with starting the Expol investigation, the DHSC ditched the AGC at the last possible time, so they had a reason to claim for deferring the hearing.
4.  The DHSC didn't get the legal advice they wanted and shopped around till someone told them what they wanted to hear.
5.  The DHSC and AGS collaborated to delay things as much as possible and this looked like the best way to do that.

As for appointing Callin Wild they do have employment law experience (they represented DBC against that poor man who got stuck in Cyprus for example) though it's notable in this case they brought out the big guns (ie Callin and Wild) perhaps to try to signal to the Deemster that the Manx legal mafia were on their side.

There’s another alternative. And it’s been publicly alluded to.

6. A member of the AG’s staff, involved in representing DHSC, has been summonsed or called to give evidence about the evidence gathering exercise. That conflicts the AG’s chambers.

[Roger Mexico]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There’s another alternative. And it’s been publicly alluded to.

6. A member of the AG’s staff, involved in representing DHSC, has been summonsed or called to give evidence about the evidence gathering exercise. That conflicts the AG’s chambers.

That certainly seems involved, but if the involvement was conflicting enough, then that should have been realised back in May.  And presumably legal advice would be privileged as above so there would be no point in summoning on those grounds without agreement.

And if summoning any member of staff to give evidence automatically removed the whole organisation of the AGC from a court case, then every smart defence lawyer would be trying to sabotage their client's prosecution.  It's all very strange.

[Kopek]

....but if the AG could see that there could be prosecutions from this outcome, how could they continue as defence/advisor to the Dept???

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

That certainly seems involved, but if the involvement was conflicting enough, then that should have been realised back in May.  And presumably legal advice would be privileged as above so there would be no point in summoning on those grounds without agreement.

And if summoning any member of staff to give evidence automatically removed the whole organisation of the AGC from a court case, then every smart defence lawyer would be trying to sabotage their client's prosecution.  It's all very strange.

It would depend on the level of involvement of the staff member, for instance did they act as the “instructing solicitor”.

They won’t have known back in May who the Tribunal would seek to take evidence from. You’re assuming that it was known early on. We don’t know when that person was called. And clearly once called you’ll need to take a short time to consider position. Then if you cease to act client has to find someone else, and instruct them.

Its not instantaneous.

[Roger Mexico]

19 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It would depend on the level of involvement of the staff member, for instance did they act as the “instructing solicitor”.

They won’t have known back in May who the Tribunal would seek to take evidence from. You’re assuming that it was known early on. We don’t know when that person was called. And clearly once called you’ll need to take a short time to consider position. Then if you cease to act client has to find someone else, and instruct them.

Its not instantaneous.

But if the staff member was the "instructing solicitor", surely any evidence would be covered by legal privilege?  And without cooperation (which clearly isn't being given) the Tribunal would know this and not summon them, even if asked to by Ranson's team.  It's possible a member of AGC (maybe not a lawyer) was involved in the disclosure process, but would that be enough to rule the whole of the Chambers out?  And that would surely have been known in May.  We've obviously not got the whole story.

[StrangeBrew]

58 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There’s another alternative. And it’s been publicly alluded to.

6. A member of the AG’s staff, involved in representing DHSC, has been summonsed or called to give evidence about the evidence gathering exercise. That conflicts the AG’s chambers.

Would instructions as to how to collate and disclose evidence be considered as legal advice that would be covered by legal privilege? I’d have thought it would be pretty generic.

[HiVibes]

7 hours ago, Kat Ellen said:

Best Regards & I hope you like the picture 👍 

Love the picture, I always skipped the character breakfasts as thought they were a rip off, having cocktails with Droopy the dog though... top drawer!

Edited August 30, 2022 by HiVibes

[Kopek]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

You’re assuming that it was known early on

It may not have been but when the facts became known in the intervening months it could be that the AGs dept  determined that they could not be both counsel and subsequently, prosecutor, to what was unveiling ???