Augustus Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 Standing Orders of Tynwald Court General Debates 3.20B (8) The subject matter of a General Debate shall not refer to any matter which is sub judice, subject to the discretion of the President. In the course of a General Debate no reference shall be made to a matter which is sub judice, subject to the discretion of the President. 11.4 “sub judice” includes any civil case in which papers for the commencement of proceedings have been filed in the office of any court or tribunal, whether or not they have been served on or communicated to the other party or any criminal case where a person has been charged or summoned to appear at court. A case will remain sub judice until it is discontinued, or judgment has been or verdict and sentence have been delivered and until the time for appealing has expired; it will continue to be sub judice after papers for the commencement of any appeal have been lodged until judgment or discontinuance. This definition of “sub judice” was inserted 17th November 2009. It is a very wide definition of sub judice for purposes of Tynwald. If politicians wish to change it, it is within their gift to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 The Clerk is there to advise on Procedural Matters, on legal matters he would need to be advised by whom? The AG of course. I don't think there is anything suspect in that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 18 minutes ago, Kopek said: The Clerk is there to advise on Procedural Matters, on legal matters he would need to be advised by whom? The AG of course. I don't think there is anything suspect in that? Chris Robertshaw's point was that the AG is advising all of Govt, Tynwald and Keys included. So if they advise dept X of Y, the advice is hardly going to change or be contradictory if Tynwald is Keys asks for advice from their perspective. It does not help in the separation of the executive from policy. He suggests that a separate legal advisor should be used for Tynwald and Keys, say, a Solicitor General. It is an issue and is exemplified by the recent application of a sub judice moratorium on debate on a matter of grave and fundamental concern to everyone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 (edited) If the legal advice on sub judice was correct, it wouldn't or at least it shouldn't, matter who is delivering such? It should open to scrutiny(1), I agree but there are plenty of minds who could do that. An MHK should be allowed an explanation too. (1), has the Iraq war advise been revealed? Edited May 29, 2022 by Kopek spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOR Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 9 hours ago, Ghost Ship said: Just watched that third instalment from Paul Moulton, and the letter to the PAC from David Ashford which Chris Robertshaw read out is pretty damning - if more was needed - of Ashford's involvement in all this. Jut watching these Youtubes now. I will say again. This is the Chris Robertshaw that was voted in by Douglas East. A man of moral integrity who is not afraid to hold a spotlight under the machinations of our Government and challenge. He's good. Oh he's good alright. It is not the same Chris Robertshaw that sat in our parliament for all those years. That was a different Chris Robertshaw. A man who took huge self-pride in sitting with the big boys in the Thursday Club that is the Council of Ministers, and acting like their chief baitch. He must be spending endless sleeping nights rueing those days and is trying to make amends. About time CR. About time. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 Chris Robertshaw reads out a letter that Ashford sent to the PAC chairman regarding Dr Ransons testimony, is this available anywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 I believe it is this wonderful work of fiction. Judging from his resignation letter, this one was written by Magson as it is beyond his skill level. We now know that this is more spin and lies from DHSS. Hard to shred things when they are in the public domain https://gef.im/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/httpswww.tynwald.org_.imbusinessppReports2021-PP-0171.pdfpage63.pdf 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 Ashford certainly had his pants pulled down by Magson and the team around her. He should've used his resignation speech to admit it and demonstrate that he gets it. Ministers continually get shafted under our system and it needs fixing if things are going to change. I won't be holding my breath... 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 8 minutes ago, cissolt said: I believe it is this wonderful work of fiction. https://gef.im/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/httpswww.tynwald.org_.imbusinessppReports2021-PP-0171.pdfpage63.pdf It's a point-by-point rebuttal! 😆 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KERED Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 13 hours ago, Non-Believer said: Precisely why he was put in the job, having proved it beyond all doubt at DfE. . . . and maybe he asked very nicely (with a huge "Pretty Please") if he could be the next one to wear the posh frock and wig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 The only 'rebuttal' was when Ashie bent over Magson's desk... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 47 minutes ago, Augustus said: This definition of “sub judice” was inserted 17th November 2009. It is a very wide definition of sub judice for purposes of Tynwald. If politicians wish to change it, it is within their gift to do so. I mentioned this after Skelly's ridiculous behaviour, presumably before 2009 they got away with using the same meaning as everyone else. Though you'd be pushed to justify some of his rulings even using that ridiculously wide definition. Robertshaw and the others seem to have missed this was the basic problem and how that explained how they and everyone else could talk about it while those in Tynwald couldn't. There's actually quite a lot of things like that which are easy to fix by simple changes to Standing Orders, the Ministerial Code and so on. It just needs a bit of thought and maybe a bit of outside advice. I suspect so much has come out of the AG's Office in the past telling them that they "can't" do things that every other parliament seems to manage. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 1 hour ago, Kopek said: If the legal advice on sub judice was correct, it wouldn't or at least it shouldn't, matter who is delivering such? It should open to scrutiny(1), I agree but there are plenty of minds who could do that. An MHK should be allowed an explanation too. (1), has the Iraq war advise been revealed? That is the point, legal advice is usually an opinion, based on law of course, but there are often different interpretations depending on who asks the question and what the question is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 What if legal interpretation by an AG and an SG led to a dispute, lawyers being what they are, it would take months to sort out, so Tynwald debate would be stopped anyway!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Kopek said: What if legal interpretation by an AG and an SG led to a dispute, lawyers being what they are, it would take months to sort out, so Tynwald debate would be stopped anyway!!! That's possible, I suppose, but unlikely as each would be advising a different party. So, eg, the sub judice moratorium: The AG would advise, say, DHSC* that the standing order can be used (not sure why, but just for illustrative purposes) but the SH would advise the President that the SO can be suspended. ETA * or CoMin/CM. Edited May 29, 2022 by Gladys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.