Telephone: (01624) 685452 Fax:
(01624) 629162
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHAMBERS 3RD FLOOR, ST MARY’S COURT HILL STREET, DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN IM1 1EU
Your ref: Our ref: JLMQ/KC/AG/2006/224
(Please quote reference on all correspondence) 26 March 2013 Mr S Holmes address supplied Dear Mr Holmes Re:
Claims against Isle of Man (including but not limited to claims against the General Registry, Treasury and others including diverse individuals)
I thank you for your recent communications forwarded to me, in particular the following:– (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
Memorandum dated Monday 18 March 2013; Emailed memorandum sent 19 March 2013; A copy of your email to the Chief Secretary sent on 21 March 2013; and Your emailed memorandum sent to me on the 25 March 2013, attaching a memorandum dated 25 March 2013.
In view of the volume of correspondence you have been sending to Chambers, the Governor and various arms and individuals within the civil service, I have taken the trouble to familiarise myself with some of the recent judicial decisions and more particularly, I have also reviewed the opinion compiled by Mr. Murray and delivered in letter form to Ms. Sarah Smith at the Ministry of Justice dated 14 November 2012 specifically dealing with various extra-judicial petitions. This opinion was obviously compiled at a time when the office of Attorney General was not filled by reason of the absence of the holder of that office. As you are clearly aware on the 18 March 2013 I was appointed Acting Attorney General. Recap of legal proceedings Essentially, I note that your complaints ultimately stem from your concerns in relation to (i) certain Orders of the Lancaster County Court (with which Orders you take exception and in respect of which you ask me take certain action to which I refer below) and (ii) the subsequent treatment of such Orders by the Courts in this jurisdiction in May and November 2004. Dealing with the Isle of Man aspect first, I am aware that the 2004 Isle of Man Court orders were the subject of an appeal (successful on the point raised) and reflected in the anonymised Judgment delivered by the Staff of Government Division on 26 October 2007. Whilst I note the appeal was successful, I further note the observation of the Staff of Government Division that: “…although Deputy Deemster Williamson would have been entitled to make the order which he did on the basis that the High Court had assumed jurisdiction over the children, in fact paragraph 4 of his Order was founded on the proper registration in the Isle of Man of the order made by the [English] Court on [date]. Again we will have to consider whether such order had in fact been registered in the High Court and, if not, the consequences of non registration on the order made by Deputy Deemster Williamson on [date] …” (paragraph 27). I refer to this paragraph of the appeal decision because, whilst there appear to have been procedural deficiencies relevant to the registration process in respect of the Orders of the Lancaster Court, as an underlying substantive point it would appear the Isle of Man Court would appear to have been entitled to have assumed jurisdiction over the children on the basis that they were in the Isle of Man. The underlying complaints in your litigation against the General Registry, Treasury and other individuals connected with the civil service including Deemster Williamson and the Chief Registrar ultimately stem from your complaints about the actions of the Court in 2004. I am however aware, from reviewing further Judgments, that you have instigated various sets of proceedings
relevant to your underlying complaints, which proceedings have either been abandoned by you or struck out by the Court, notwithstanding clear guidance given to you by the judiciary, including, for example, the comments of Deputy Deemster Corlett (as he was then) at paragraph 29 of his Judgment dated 20 January 2009 wherein he stated: “Nevertheless, it seems to me that he might possibly have the prospect of some success in a claim pleaded in negligence and brought against the General Registry. Whether of course any such cause of action will avail him of any benefit whatsoever remains very much to be seen. It appears to me that Mr. Holmes will have significant difficulties in proving causation and quantum and he will have to overcome significant hurdles in explaining, for example, why he did not appeal more promptly against Deputy Deemster Williamson's Orders made in November 2004 and November 2005.” It would appear that you subsequently determined to issue proceedings following Deputy Deemster Corlett’s comments, through the proceedings reference CHP 11/0083. These proceedings were issued against Deemster Williamson, His Excellency and Attorney General, Mr. Stephen Harding, which led to a Judgment from His Honour the First Deemster on 14 December 2011. I note that those proceedings (CHP 11/0083) were struck out and, moreover, that the Judgment records, at its foot, a short note in the following terms: “On the 14th December 2011 the claimant's claim dated 13 th October 2011 and issued on the 18 th October 2011 (Claim No. ORD 11/0078) against Mrs. Jayne Farquhar and Mr. Andrew K Williamson c/o General Registry was, at the Claimant’s request and with his consent, dismissed. In proceedings under reference CHP 11/0083 an order was made that the Claimant pay the costs of the Defendant and the Interested Parties such costs to be assessed on the standard basis unless agreed. The Claimant gave an undertaking “not to take any further proceedings in respect of the General Registry or Andrew K Williamson”]” My understanding is that thereafter you then endeavoured to issue various sets of proceedings through the Courts and that the Court has determined not to allow those proceedings to be issued and has subsequently determined, through an order of Deemster Roberts, to impose a General Civil Restraint Order. Your recent appeal against imposition of that General Civil Restraint Order was unsuccessful. Having set out above a background of your complaint with particular reference to judicial proceedings, in my capacity as lead legal advisor to the various entities comprising the Isle of Man Government and as Crown legal representative in the Island (in particular as counsel to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, Her Majesty’s representative in the Island), I can advise you that I consider there is no proper basis for your continued complaints, taking account of the substance of the matters about which you write and also taking into account the various opportunities you have had and the steps you have taken to seek judicial recourse relevant to those matters. Inevitably there needs to be finality in litigation and for the process of the Court not to be abused. In terms of your continued correspondence with various Civil Servants in relation to your use of the internal complaints policies of Government, I must advise that my view is that these are predominantly intended to relate to failures of administration, rather than substantive criticism of matters which are properly to he addressed by legal proceedings (in particular where you are dissatisfied as to the outcome of the internal complaints process). It is not the purpose of the internal complaints process to establish legal liability and, as I trust you will appreciate, any insured party must not take a step which will or could vitiate that insurance. Having considered all of the above, I have reached the view that there is no basis upon which liability could properly now be established through the judicial process (absent permission being granted by the Court to enable proceedings to be pursued) and moreover, I do not consider there exists any wider Crown or good governance interest which warrants intervention, either through me or His Excellency. On this basis, I shall be advising officers in Chambers not to enter into further correspondence with you. I shall be advising His Excellency of the view that I have reached by sending a copy of this letter to him. I shall also be advising the Chief Secretary and appropriate civil servants that I do not consider there is any further basis for them to respond to correspondence sent by you.
In terms of any communications you wish to have with the General Registry, it would seem appropriate for the Registry not to enter into any correspondence with you, save to the extent that you endeavour to seek permission from the Court to issue legal proceedings within the parameters of the General Civil Restraint Order imposed by Deemster Roberts. Having reviewed the correspondence files and the background to this matter to which I refer above I must counsel you that your repetitive, multi-party and at times quite offensive communications are such that they could amount to harassment. I call upon you to stop harassing those persons who you have clearly targeted. Yours sincerely
JLM Quinn HM Acting Attorney General