-
Mannin Line 9th September 2025 Factual Error and Clarifications
LEGALLY QUALIFIED JUSTICE MINISTER
On the Mannin Line on Tuesday 9th September 2025 you responded to Chris Robertshaw concerns about the constitutional crisis highlighted by Tribunal Chair revelations in effect on HM AG Chambers unethical legal strategy and about the appointment of multiple HM AG Chambers employees to the Employment and Equality Tribunal.
Firstly, you explained the multiple HM AG Chambers employees had been appointed due to a shortage of legally qualified applicants but you reassured the audience that such employees are not allowed to act in public sector tribunal cases.
Sorry that is a factual error. You were not aware because it was covered up in a tribunal judgment but I questioned the existence of an unknown third party in email threads in my public sector tribunal case in 2023. I specifically objected to the entirely inappropriate involvement of a clearly conflicted tribunal employee and HM AG Chambers employee Philip Farrar but my objection was improperly dismissed.Please confirm that the employees are able to attend tribunal cases with special leave without losing any HM AG Chambers income or holiday leave and amounts to a disguised pay rise to minimise further resignations by HM AG Chambers employees able to earn more in the private sector.
Please confirm that such a dual role is inherently incompatible with the separation of powers and amounted to unacceptable procedural unfairness and a breach of the right to a fair trial in the context of your policy statement.
The tribunal chair revelations reference to 20 months includes my reported concerns timeline yet the tribunal chair acted with cumulative personal animosity and extreme bias and wrongfully awarded an unprecedented 100 percent costs order over £100,000 against me to deliberately try to bankrupt me to silence me because I refused to allow HM AG Chambers to cover up corruption and refused to allow the tribunal to downplay uncovered new evidence of corruption that had been concealed.
HM AG Chambers had a professional duty to control, possess, review and disclose legally significant documents in a sealed archive box in the Public Records Office to comply with a specific disclosure court order. No key documents were identified and disclosed by HM AG Chambers in the same way that no key documents were identified and disclosed in the old bus station redevelopment site scandal and legal proceedings to recover up to £90m in damages. HM AG Chambers civil litigation cover ups are unjust and unaffordable to the taxpayer.
I uncovered the attached concealed key document with other legally significant concealed documents on the date the same sealed archive box was unsealed about 18 months later in the Public Records Office.The document expressly states that it would be illegal to backdate secondary legislation to stop an existing increase to an allowance because it is specifically banned in the primary legislation yet the secondary legislation was backdated anyway and HM AG Chambers has the insulting audacity to claim it doesnt matter. The equivalent UK secondary legislation was specifically forward dated to avoid any such illegality.
Secondly, you explained that a full-time employment law judge would be or had been employed.
The Isle of Man presently forces legally unrepresented public sector employees with compelling grounds to appeal to give up and accept an injustice life sentence because it is impossible to risk other party costs against an unethical legal strategy operated by HM AG Chambers with concealed evidence, false legal opinions and fabricated legal arguments and worse.
The UK Supreme Court R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor ruling in 2017 could not have been any clearer. An employee is entitled to file a case with a tribunal and an employee is entitled to a free independent appeal mechanism.
The General Registry ludicrous recommended solution is that a legally unrepresented injustice victim already unable to pay unaffordable cumulative court fees due to the injustice should file an appeal despite the unaffordable cumulative court fees to legally challenge a court fees order worse than the UK court fees order already ruled illegal by the UK Supreme Court because any court fee below a high minimum fee is payable without a full fee waiver exception and that causes an additional unaffordable cumulative fees barrier to accessto justice.
Please clarify if the judge will sit in the High Court with the same court fees and the same other party costs risk access to justice barriers or introduce an overdue reform to operate as per the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal without tribunal fees and without other party costs risk.The failure to publish judgments in line with the human right to open justice and with UK Lady Chief Justice policy means that ChatGPT is unable to analyse existing judgments to identify inconsistent judgments and errors in law and assist with new cases given the scale of the Isle of Man civil legal aid crisis.
The Office of the Information Commissioner had confirmed it was an offence to force someone to supply partner personal data without consent to the tribunal. A High Court appeal judgment that the tribunal chair acted unlawfully is unpublished. Why?
Please confirm that the Isle of Man Government no longer upholds key human rights in the European Convention on Human Rights.If you want to help stop injustice contact us by email via tynwaldpapers@gmail.com in the first instance.
#StopTheFloutlaws
-
Isle of Man unlawful court fees order contrary to UNISON v Lord Chancellor [2017] UK SC 51
BY EMAIL
Sharon Graham, General Secretary, UNITE
cc Debbie Halsall, Regional Officer, Isle of Man
The landmark UNISON ruling:
- highlighted the right to a free independent appeal mechanism — but the Isle of Man only allows an internal review request to the same tribunal chair with anecdotal evidence that such internal review requests are inadequately considered and dismissed with procedural unfairness
- banned tribunal and appeal tribunal fees because they obstructed access to justice — but the Isle of Man has not established an appeal tribunal without fees and without the High Court appeal costs risk most likely based on legal opinion from the conflicted Isle of Man HM AG Chambers to minimise legal challenges against government and in effect to obstruct access to justice in public sector legal matters
- reestablished the rule of law and required legal rights to be usable in the real world — but the Isle of Man civil legal aid scheme is unusable for example by anyone married pending divorce wrongfully denied access to social security benefits
However, the ruling has been repeatedly disrespectfully and unlawfully disregarded in the Isle of Man
The Isle of Man Chief Registrar and line management potentially with conflicted legal opinion from the Isle of Man HM AG Chambers have:
- downplayed serious concerns about any minimum court fee without a full fee remission option and unaffordable court fees contrary to access to justice and the right to a fair trial and in effect exploited a legal technicality between a “highly persuasive” UK Supreme Court ruling and a “legally binding” UK Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruling without reference to any domestic legislation or case law that overrules the ruling
- failed to seek independent legal opinion on the equivalent Isle of Man unlawful secondary legislation court fees order drafted by the conflicted Isle of Man AG Chambers
- disingenuously claimed that a litigant in person is able to legally challenge an unlawful secondary legislation court fees order despite unaffordable court fees and despite obstructed access to civil legal aid and despite costs risk
- ignored serious concerns about legally unqualified public counter employee informal training based on explanatory notes that misstate the law [not their fault]
- ignored serious concerns about unlawful cumulative fees above any minimum fee level
- concealed the existence of unrevoked lawful secondary legislation GC 250/90 with a full fee remission option not superceded by any unlawful secondary legislation court fees order
Isle of Man Attorney General Chambers are known and have been repeatedly shown to break rules and to break laws with highly selective concealment of evidence, false legal opinions and fabricated legal arguments to evade liability and accountability in public sector legal matters.
A recent shocking public statement by the employment and equality tribunal chair confirmed the scale of employee issues in public sector legal matters and what amounts to a constitutional crisis:
Tribunal’s Unease at AG Chambers’ Tactics
….
The chair, Douglas Stewart, cited concerns about an “uneven playing field” for individuals taking on government-backed legal teams.
….
Mr Stewart expressed unease with the tactics used, noting that labelling a case as “vexatious” and issuing cost warnings is “bound to be disturbing and would intimidate the typical Complainant”.
….
He added that it is “at least arguable” that such tactics “may itself be behaving in a manner which is unreasonable” when done without clear grounds.
Similarly:
….
Vicki Unsworth claimed there are in excess of 100 documents that the two government departments had failed to disclose.
She said, ‘one could be forgiven’ in believing there has been a ‘conspiracy to conceal’.
The risk to the trade union with member disputes is ever higher legal risk and ever higher overall legal costs and ever more injustice life sentences.
The member request is in line with the General Secretary commitment to call out cover up culture and corruption.
Please consider a narrowed minimum cost doleance petition judicial review in the Isle of Man High Court Chancery Division to extend the UK landmark UNISON ruling to the Isle of Man and amplify trade union member and family member benefits.
I feel sure UNISON would assist if relevant.
-
Isle of Man Open Justice Gap
The Open Justice External Audit report 2024 researched and documented the OPEN JUSTICE issue in the Isle of Man, the relationship to other issues such as the EQUALITY OF ARMS issue, the HUMAN RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL issue with all available evidence material to the case disclosed and the ACCESS TO JUSTICE issue.
The report was shared with the Chief Registrar to highlight a fundamental breakdown in the rule of law in particular in public sector whistleblower cases.
The Chief Registrar refused to acknowledge the existence of the report, refused to respond to the recommendations and refused to remedy the highlighted serious issues.
The report highlighted:
(1) a disproportionately high percentage of unpublished judgments contrary to the open justice legal principle and in contempt of human rights and the UK Supreme Court judgment Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] that reiterated the necessity of published court judgments and tribunal decisions
(2) the judgments website includes “trick coding” to specifically stop searchable judgments in Google searches and that disadvantages a litigant in person against a legally represented other party
(3) woefully inadequate judgments website search functionality and statistics contrary to the open justice legal principle
(4) implied exclusive agreements with legal publishers to minimise published judgments to maximise profits and any profit share — the offline public register includes nearly 20,000 small claims procedure cases but the judgments website includes less than 20 published judgments — yet the courts and tribunals expect a litigant in person to reference the most relevant cases and that blatantly undermines the ACCESS TO JUSTICE, EQUALITY OF ARMS and FAIR TRIAL legal principles
(5) a conflicted HM Attorney General Chambers implicated in the CORPORATE GOVERNANCE SYSTEMIC FAILURE issue aided and abetted by “team player” public sector employees closing ranks to protect themselves and HM Attorney General Chambers
(6) the INIQUITOUS LEGAL OPINION issue, the UNDISCLOSED EVIDENCE issue and the indefensible FABRICATED LEGAL DEFENCE to evade any liability and any accountability issue
(7) information available internally but not made available to external justice system users
(8) the FEE REMISSION issue — a litigant in person is only deemed unable to afford a court fee above 253 pounds and 50 pence but somehow able to afford cumulative court fees that exceed the same total
(9) a worrying lack of dissenting opinions in judgments that implies a GROUPTHINK issue
The Isle of Man Government EMPLOYEE INDEMNIFICATION fake legal expenses promise scandal and the outsourced CIVIL LEGAL AID FINANCIAL ELIGIBILITY TEST scandal amount to an unpublished public sector anti-whistleblower policy.
The lack of a “practical and effective” civil legal assistance scheme is contrary to the European Court of Human Rights Airey v Ireland [2019] judgment. Ask yourself is it a coincidence that the pivotal judgment is excluded from the ECHR section on the Isle of Man judgments website:1. Access to the courts is an essential aspect of the right to a fair hearing
2. The Irish government’s failure to provide legal aid or alternative measures to facilitate access to the courts breached Article 6(1).
3. The complexity of the legal process combined with the lack of legal aid, effectively denied the right to a fair hearing.
If you want to help stop injustice contact us by email via tynwaldpapers@gmail.com in the first instance.
-
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me the UK Crown constitutional ultimate responsibility to enforce good government in the Isle of Man
As an Isle of Man parliament researcher familiar with the legislation process, I unexpectedly unravelled and reported what I thought could only be a mistake in my wife’s payroll from the day she transferred from the UK police to the Isle of Man police with a housing allowance that should have been index linked.
Ask yourself why the Isle of Man parliament CEO, the Isle of Man Justice Minister and HM Attorney General Chambers agreed to internally budget up to 250,000 pounds in legal costs to defend a so called 5,000 pounds underpayment in an employment tribunal.
HM Attorney General Chambers knew from day #1 that I was right but they ruthessly recommended an unethical malicious defence riddled with unlawful iniquitous legal opinions (that automatically lose legal privilege) to help senior employees and Ministers of the UK Crown evade any accountability and any liability for civil and/or criminal offences and that it would cost millions of pounds in underpayments caused by the cover up and compensation that would finally justify all employees guilty of misconduct in public office to be fired and assets seized to offset costs.
Ask yourself why HM Attorney General Chambers deliberately concealed key documents that I only uncovered at the public records warehouse a few months ago that proved everything I had logically extrapolated from the legislation process in 2016 and 2017 and 2019 and 2020 but that the police CEO and deputy CEO repeatedly denied.
letter from police CEO to Isle of Man Police Federation honorary secretary dated 19th November 1993 to confirm an irrevocabe initial 5 year agreement
letter from police CEO to HM Attorney General Chambers dated 26th November 1993 to confirm
letter from HM Attorney General Chambers to police CEO dated 29th November 1993 to confirm it would be illegal to do what the government did (void pro tanto) and that the liability would be cumulative (void to the future)
Ask yourself if HM Attorney General Chambers is illegally funded by HM Treasury in breach of the purported Isle of Man Law Society champerty and maintenance funding rules that are enforced against parties without deep pockets to minimise access to justice or if HM Attorney General Chambers is actually legally funded but the champerty and maintenance rules are disingenuously and illegally enforced against litigants in person without adequate financial means contrary to the equality of arms legal principle and the human right to a fair trial.
Ask yourself why the HM Attorney General banned pre-action protocols (yet demands that a court labels a litigant in person as unreasonable for any claims even though it is the only option to quantify claims with a disclosure order) and endorsed secret website source code to block Google search indexed judgments.
Ask yourself why the Isle of Man Law Society banned “no win no fee” to help stop the resistance to the fraudulently misrepresented public sector whistleblowing policy (meaningless with an anti-whistleblowing strategy).
Ask yourself why the Isle of Man courts banned class actions so that victims are not allowed to share legal costs to fight injustice and disregard “highly persuasive” but inconvenient UK Supreme Court judgments.
Ask yourself why the arms length Legal Aid Committee deliberately concealed the existence of the contrary interest exception in explanatory notes and in the online legal aid calculator from married public sector whistleblowers acting in good faith and in the public interest and why HM Treasury are now complicit in a cover up.
Most of the wrongdoing that I have battled and most of the slanderous, libellous, career, financial, health and personal life consequences that I have suffered in an absolutely horrendous ordeal have been inflicted by UK Ministry of Justice endorsed appointments.
The new UK government and the King should not tolerate another UK Post Office type scandal.
The systemic corruption in the Isle of Man government and the out of control cover up culture crushes public sector whistleblowers and kills British citizens with impunity.
The UK Ministry of Justice indifferently and callously refuses to “interfere” in serious Isle of Man corporate governance issues despite a constitutional ultimate responsibility that has clearly been triggered by correspondence that highlights irrefutable evidence of the systemic corruption and injustices that necessitates action not complicit inaction.
If you want to help stop injustice contact us by email via tynwaldpapers@gmail.com in the first instance.
-
Hidden Cost of Corruption Crisis
Most private sector workers, voters and taxpayers don’t understand the hidden cost of corruption.
Imagine successfully recruiting and investing 20 or 40 or 80 thousand pounds over 10 or 20 or 30 years in 1 of your best employees to the point that they know the operations inside out …. and then plot to force them to leave because they uncover a financial irregularity or a management failure that nobody dares to admit.
Should otherwise oblivious taxpayers expect to absorb the hidden cost to needlessly lose employees with expertise and loyalty and integrity and to backfill with less experienced employees unfamiliar with the operations, with costly errors in the meantime, then groomed to not care about integrity and to not whistleblow in any circumstances whatsoever …. or else?
The HR director could but doesn’t calculate an estimated cost of corruption. As the former Manx Industrial Relations Service director, the HR director must be acutely aware of the incredible scale of corruption based on 200+ finalised MIRS settlements. Does that imply that world class corporate governance claims are false? Ask yourself why so many out of court settlements are required and why such settlements are subject to non-disclosure intimidation on immediate repayment if the government considers that any further discussion with third parties amounts to “disparagement”. It is actually illegal to seek to stop any such further discussion.
If you want to help stop injustice contact us by email via tynwaldpapers@gmail.com in the first instance.
-
Broken System League Table 2024
Isle of Man public authories are ranked by estimated highest percentage cost in the Hidden Cost of Corruption Crisis either by corruption or by functional scope and legal power but failure to stop the corruption with meaningful reforms.
01: HM Attorney General Chambers
02: Department of Home Affairs
03: Treasury
04: Office of the Clerk of Tynwald
05: Isle of Man Constabulary
06: Legal Aid Committee
07: General Registry
08: Isle of Man Law Society
09: Information Commissioner
10: Office of Fair Trading
11: Appointments Commission
12: Department for Enterprise
13: Cabinet Office (includes Office of Human Resources and Government Technology Services)
14: Manx Industrial Relations Service
15: Financial Services Authority
16: Manx Care
17: Department of Health and Social Care
18: Department of Infrastructure
19: Manx Utilities Authority
20: Financial Intelligence Unit
21: Road Transport Licensing Committee
22: Manx National Heritage
23: Department of Education Sport Culture
24: Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture
25: Public Services Commission
26: Communications and Utilities Regulatory Authority
27: Gambling Supervision Commission
28: Public Sector Pensions Authority
If you want to help stop injustice contact us by email via tynwaldpapers@gmail.com in the first instance.
-
L.I.P. service
In a very broken system, as a Litigant in Person in a public sector whistleblowing case, you will have to fight the HR policies and procedures and the HM Attorney General chambers as much or more than the relevant government department or parliament.
HM AG chambers represent the taxpayer funded corporate entity and, given all employees are taxpayers, you could be forgiven for thinking multiple employees in an employment dispute would be treated equally, innocent until proved guilty. However, if you report wrongdoing in good faith, you are suddenly in the firing line. Literally.
The MIRS, Tribunal and small claims procedure explanatory notes are all good but not quite good enough for a first time LIP. Lessons learned:
1. The claim form needs to be as complete as possible with high level reference to each issue type and minimised context. It is not a witness statement but it becomes harder and harder to amend. There needs to be a definitive issues check list for a LIP with a simple explanation in notes such as unfair dismissal, constructive unfair dismissal due to whistleblowing, victimisation, unlawful deduction of wages, age discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, etc.
2. Ask to look at the public register (ironically in a private room) and review other cases before you finalise your claim form.
3. You need to familiarise yourself with the tribunal process so go to a relevant case if one within your timeline or, if not, another case shortlisted and selected from the public register and the cases and dates listed online.
4. Shortlist and review some relevant cases and judgments from the Isle of Man judgments database.
5. You need to familiarise yourself with the legislation, regulations, etc relevant to your case. The Employment Act 2006, health and safety regulations and, if a more complex case, the tribunal rules. You need to clarify if any claim in your case is outside scope. Data protection compensation via the small claims procedure in the high court. Criminal offences via the police but you will then need to consider timing because a crime reference number will potentially pause a civil case such as the employment tribunal because a guilty person would not answer a self-incriminating question!
If you want to help stop injustice contact us by email via tynwaldpapers@gmail.com in the first instance.
-
Just Tell the Truth
Some members of Tynwald and some employees in the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald have had professional development via the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and McGill University so it is almost reassuring to see the public sector in Canada has some challenges similar to the public sector in the Isle of Man: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2022/report-public-service-fearful-advice/
https://www.mcgill.ca/scs-parliament/
If you want to help stop injustice contact us by email via tynwaldpapers@gmail.com in the first instance.
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Tynwald Papers 
