Another one bites the dust

[Roger Mexico]

18 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Because it isn’t a judgment. The conviction was by a jury. The Deemster passed sentence. He made remarks when sentencing. They’re never reported as judgments. Here, UK, anywhere.

Thats what the press is for, Roger.

I was obviously using judgment in a loose sense (ie a ruling handed down by a judge) and it's true they aren't normally published in the Isle of Man.  But they are often elsewhere.  Here's the sentencing remarks in England and Wales for example when they are  usually only published for the more serious and noteworthy crimes such as murder or terrorism and here they are for Scotland (where they are called Sentencing Statements) where:

A judge may decide to publish a statement after passing sentence on an offender in cases where there is particular public interest; where a case has legal significance; or where providing the reasons for the decision might assist public understanding.

And let's face it if a deemster wants to communicate their feelings about the behaviour of those other than the accused or indeed explain the sentence for any of the reasons given above, they're better off doing so directly themselves rather than relying on the media to get things right or even notice it at all.

[Ghost Ship]

4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't know and of course in the past we've had criticisms from the bench about this sort of thing that turned out to be unfounded. I can't see anything in Gef's coverage of the verdict, but understandably that focused on the crimes.   Unfortunately, yet again, an important judgment has not been published that should have been.  Rather than whether something contains important points in law or things on which future guidance is needed (as this would have been), the main criterion appears to be: don't publish if anyone working for government is criticised.

 

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

Because it isn’t a judgment. The conviction was by a jury. The Deemster passed sentence. He made remarks when sentencing. They’re never reported as judgments. Here, UK, anywhere.

Thats what the press is for, Roger.

 

What I was asking about was not what the Deemster had said when passing sentence, but what Tynwald had done which had led the Deemster to have harsh words about them.

What Sam Turton (is that his name?) said at about 17 minutes into the video was that Deemster Richmond had had very harsh words about Tynwald* and that he (the Deemster) had basically said that it was by luck rather than judgment that he had been able to allow the trial to go ahead at all after what Tynwald had done.

Sam Turton seemed to be suggesting that after being criticised by the Deemster in that case, that Tynwald might now be particularly risk averse about openly discussing controversial matters.

I presume that something had been done or said in Tynwald that might potentially have prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial (a proper example of what I would call a sub judice matter - a criminal trial) and I was simply wondering what that something might be.  (In general rather than specific terms.  eg had somebody said something along the lines that the defendant was guilty and must be convicted, or what.)

I think it correct that Tynwald should be wary of discussing sub judice matters in relation to criminal proceedings (or at least should understand that if they do do so, then people may unfortunately escape prosecution) but that it shouldn't be used as a shield to avoid discussion of embarrassing matters.

* I know the AG's office and the Chief Constable were apparently criticised as well, but Sam Turton was very clear about referring to what "Tynwald had done" in this instance.

[Ghost Ship]

7 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I'd always assumed that the main provider of advice would be the Clerk of Tynwald and his titles include  Secretary to the House of Keys and Counsel to the Speaker.  But while that is true in the Keys (and would have to be as the AG is member of LegCo which tends to meet at the same time) it isn't in Tynwald.  The reason for this is historic I think.  Until 1990 Tynwald was presided over by the Governor and his legal advisor was the AG as historically part of his government (which is what LegCo once represented).  When the President took over the advisor remained the same, though clearly it shouldn't now be.

It's confused because the Clerk's role isn't even necessarily a legal one. The current Clerk's background is as a musicologist.  Though he also has a LLB from the Open University and worked in legal fields at the Home Office, he isn't an English solicitor or barrister or a Manx advocate.  Clearly he has built up tremendous legal and procedural expertise in his filed, but he isn't actually a practicing lawyer and the same is true of his Deputy whose background is accountancy.  That doesn't that they won't know more about procedure and legislation than your average advocate, but they haven't got the memberships.  It may explain why the AG is still used, though the Clerks may be more knowledgeable.

OK.  So maybe it's a historical anomaly that after the Lt Governor was superseded in the role of presiding over Tynwald that the AG remained as the legal advisor to the President* of Tynwald.  But I'd agree that I don't think it's appropriate for the AG to remain in that role.  It needs to be somebody independent of the executive.  [Or it should be in a "proper" parliament(!)  😄.]

And that person should be the Clerk to Tynwald.  Although I'd have to say I'm amazed - and somewhat disappointed - to learn that the current Clerk has no professional legal qualification.  I'd have expected that to be an essential "must have" requirement for the job.  So far as I'm aware, all recent Clerks have been professionally qualified, and didn't the last one actually have experience as a deputy principal clerk in the House of commons?  I think they all had quite sound professional careers before becoming Clerk.  (Although I think one was an academic lawyer from Scotland so some might query if that qualifies as a "professional" career).

Regarding the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald having no legal qualifications at all - I'm speechless...

And what is it with the IOM government's apparent fascination with appointing people to senior positions with degrees in music?

 

*Thank you for explaining why Tynwald has a President.  I'd never understood where that came from

[Ghost Ship]

14 hours 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?

I'd argue that the Clerk of Tynwald shouldn't need to be advised on legal matters by anyone - as being appropriately legally qualified should be an essential requirement of the job.  (And so far as I can recall all recent predecessors have been appropriately professionally qualified and at least one also had clerking experience from the House of Commons).

In any case, doesn't the extract from Standing Orders posted up by Augustus demonstrate that the sub judice issue is a matter of procedure within Tynwald?  It seems to suggest that sub judice matters can be discussed at the discretion of the President.

As the highest "Court" on the island I think they should be able to debate sub judice matters if approriate, and it shouldn't just be used as a catch all  knee-jerk excuse to extinguish proper debate.  But Tynwald would need to understand, of course, that any debate on sub judice matters that they initiate might have other consequences that might not be particularly welcome. There are pros and cons to every approach and they need to be measured.

[Kopek]

9 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

I'd argue that the Clerk of Tynwald shouldn't need to be advised on legal matters by anyone - as being appropriately legally qualified should be an essential requirement of the job.

Might that not be an over qualification? The Clerks job will predominately be regarding 'Procedure'? They should be an expert on that as I don't suppose the Speakers are necessarily so. I'm sure the Clerk would be legally aware, possibly having studied areas of the law that could be useful to the position?

To be required to have a legal qualification might lead us to believe that they were over qualified, over paid and possibly a 'job for the boys'? You know what we're like!

How often would legalities be required? I'd venture very rarely  to the extent of being a Lawyer?

In this particular instance, the Tribunal  verdict, as broached above. It could be that the Govt have not yet  decided whether to appeal the decision, so from their side, they cannot talk about it. The MHKs can ask all the questions they like but the Govt response will be 'No Comment', so there wouldn't be a debate anyway.

I'm sure AGs are honest, honourable people and would not seek to mislead Parliament? ( Don't laugh !).

[piebaps]

11 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

I'd argue that the Clerk of Tynwald shouldn't need to be advised on legal matters by anyone - as being appropriately legally qualified should be an essential requirement of the job. 

 

It is an essential requirement. Here's an extract from the last job advert

 

[Roger Mexico]

11 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

What I was asking about was not what the Deemster had said when passing sentence, but what Tynwald had done which had led the Deemster to have harsh words about them.

What Sam Turton (is that his name?) said at about 17 minutes into the video was that Deemster Richmond had had very harsh words about Tynwald* and that he (the Deemster) had basically said that it was by luck rather than judgment that he had been able to allow the trial to go ahead at all after what Tynwald had done.

The honest answer is that none of us know until we see the exact words uttered by the Deemster Richmond and we won't (I wonder whether he even realised that).  What it may relate to this:

1. The Social Affairs Policy Review Committee’s First Report for the Session 2018/19: Historic Child Abuse at Knottfield (PP 2018/0132) was published on the Tynwald website on 4th October 2018, removed from public view on 8th October 2018 and restored to public view on 9th October 2018. It was laid before Tynwald on 16th October 2018.

2. Under the Tynwald procedures applicable at the time, a Government response to the report would normally have been published on 29th November 2018; the Report and response would then have been debated on 11th December 2018. However, by operation of the sub judice principle, the Government response and the debate were delayed. The report remained on the Tynwald website for the ensuing three years.

3. On 7th December 2021, by further operation of the sub judice principle, [the Clerk] removed the report from public view on the Tynwald website.

From memory the Report included a fairly odd interview with the AG in which he proclaimed he would not prosecute Joseph Marshall under any circumstances.  Following which he then brought more charges against him - with the effect of stopping examination of the case for more than three years.

The decision to leave the Report up on the website[1] would have taken place under King's predecessor (Roger Phillips) - King's only been in post since last September.

 

[1]  I think it and associated documents were removed from the Committee pages in 2018, but it was left up as a document submitted to Tynwald.  Whether this was a cock-up or an assertion of parliamentary privilege I don't know.

[Roger Mexico]

7 minutes ago, piebaps said:

It is an essential requirement. Here's an extract from the last job advert

King does have a legal qualification - an LLB from the Open University.  What he doesn't have is a legal membership as an Advocate or whatever.  Arguably in such a specialised role it isn't needed.

[Roger Mexico]

11 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

[...] And that person should be the Clerk to Tynwald.  Although I'd have to say I'm amazed - and somewhat disappointed - to learn that the current Clerk has no professional legal qualification.  I'd have expected that to be an essential "must have" requirement for the job.  So far as I'm aware, all recent Clerks have been professionally qualified, and didn't the last one actually have experience as a deputy principal clerk in the House of commons?  I think they all had quite sound professional careers before becoming Clerk.  (Although I think one was an academic lawyer from Scotland so some might query if that qualifies as a "professional" career).

Regarding the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald having no legal qualifications at all - I'm speechless...

And what is it with the IOM government's apparent fascination with appointing people to senior positions with degrees in music?

The idea that the Clerk should have any legal background is only fairly recent.  If you look at the list of previous Clerks, I think Quayle (who was qualified as a solicitor) was the first and the first Deputy with any legal qualification was King.  It was always seen as an admin job which required legal knowledge (usually learnt on the job).

[Bandits]

I see they’ve brought Lewin back now 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/dfe-chief-executive-to-remain-in-post/

There must be a lot of them bricking it that with no Minister, no CEO, and no Deputy CEO the department is going to be disbanded. So no doubt they’ll move him back for a few months to provide confidence - while they engineer disbanding it and moving him back to Cabinet Office. 

[Banker]

41 minutes ago, Bandits said:

I see they’ve brought Lewin back now 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/dfe-chief-executive-to-remain-in-post/

There must be a lot of them bricking it that with no Minister, no CEO, and no Deputy CEO the department is going to be disbanded. So no doubt they’ll move him back for a few months to provide confidence - while they engineer disbanding it and moving him back to Cabinet Office. 

Caldric probably said we don’t need a COO & CEO in cabinet office so get him shifted!

[NoTailT]

46 minutes ago, Bandits said:

I see they’ve brought Lewin back now 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/dfe-chief-executive-to-remain-in-post/

There must be a lot of them bricking it that with no Minister, no CEO, and no Deputy CEO the department is going to be disbanded. So no doubt they’ll move him back for a few months to provide confidence - while they engineer disbanding it and moving him back to Cabinet Office. 

Could be his last hooray before he goes elsewhere. I still expect him to go out of Gov in the coming months. His turfing out of CabO highlights this.

I think the biggest concern with DfE is that Callister was basically an almighty god given extra responsibilities on the hush because clearly Alf can't run that department too.

[Bandits]

1 minute ago, NoTailT said:

Could be his last hooray before he goes elsewhere.

I’d hope not he’s one of the better ones. 

[NoTailT]

Just now, Bandits said:

I’d hope not he’s one of the better ones. 

I agree with you to be honest. But I think he's fed up.

It's widely known Will was grooming him for Chief Sec and an already disgruntled Lewin has now had his nose disjointed even further I think.

Time will tell on this one. He'd add lots of value to someone else in the private sector I'm sure.

[Bandits]

3 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I agree with you to be honest. But I think he's fed up.

It's widely known Will was grooming him for Chief Sec and an already disgruntled Lewin has now had his nose disjointed even further I think.

You could be right there. Randall seems to be more in the mould of a Chief Sec than Lewin who is more laid back.  Don’t think he’s had much success at the DfE but then again I don’t think anyone else would have either. On that basis he was probably the best person for the job and he seems to know a lot of it is basically bollocks managing incompetents. The department needs to go. It would be a shame if he was off because his nose was put out of joint.