An iniquitous legal opinion is a legal opinion requested or received that exists to help a client get away with wrongdoing. There certainly appears to be a lot of them in contentious public sector whistleblowing cases. Any such iniquitous legal opinion automatically loses legal privilege. A public sector party is allowed to waive legal privilege and therefore the public sector party should expect to waive legal privilege, at the very least in contentious circumstances in the public interest to maintain public trust and confidence. For example, in the Dr Ranson case. There are a number of other public sector whistleblowing cases where the same issues were uncovered and yet legal privilege has been repeatedly allowed to protect guilty employees willing to close ranks without any accountability.

The whole purpose of non-standard legal support has been to help the client avoid existence of unhelpful evidence in the first place (reinforced by either allowing non-compliance with legislation or policy or by reactively changing legislation or policies such as a very short data retention period on direct message and email systems) and/or hide evidence (with an opportunity to simply downplay as overzealously filtered out if caught) and/or destroy evidence with an excuse such as an intern misunderstanding or a very short data retention policy.

I have a duty to share proof of a cover up and a cover up of a cover up to highlight the nature and the scale of corporate governance failures.

On the 15th November 2022 the Chief Minister stated in Tynwald:

Well, Mr President, the Hon. Member is raising a number of significant and serious matters that do now need to be investigated and, as the Hon.
Member has made those formal allegations, then they will need to be properly looked at.

On 16th November 2022, Trevor Cowin highlighted concerns with due process and how a Minister had been fired in an email to the Chief Minister Alf Cannan and an email to the Cabinet Office Minister Kate Lord-Brennan.

It was revealed in an externalised independent assessment report included in the Tynwald Standards and Members Interests committee final report into firing one of my constituency members of Tynwald Rob Callister, that on 17th November 2022, the Chief Minister Alf Cannan suddenly sent a self-referral letter to the Tynwald Standards and Members Interests committee 1 day after an unexpected expression of interest in due process from Trevor Cowin. Inexplicably, the letter included a suggestion to descope any evidence after the 15th November 2022. It seems odd and legally precise for a person awaiting investigation to think and to suggest a timeline that would exclude material evidence such as an email that highlighted concerns with due process. I logically concluded that the option to self-refer conduct with a suggestion to exclude material evidence after 15th November 2022 was based on an iniquitous legal opinion from HM Attorney General Chambers. In subsequent revelations, the Chief Minister confirmed that he sought legal opinion from the legally qualified Justice Minister Jane Poole-Wilson. It is unclear if any such legal opinion was documented or subject to legal privilege if the source of the legal opinion is not acting in a properly designated role.

On 25th November 2022, Trevor Cowin highlighted continued concerns in an email thread with the Cabinet Office about lack of due process to fire one of my constituency members of parliament Rob Callister as a department Minister.  As a former very experienced parliamentary researcher, I decided that I still had a duty to act in the public interest and sense check some worrying initial observations. I logically concluded that iniquitous legal opinion had been either proactively supplied by the HM Attorney General (or his Chambers) or requested from HM Attorney General (or his Chambers). It appears to have become normalised malpractice in contentious public sector matters to help cover up issues. A mistake is a mistake but closing ranks to aid and abet others to get away with a cover up is wrongdoing. A series of cover ups eventually becomes a conspiracy to deceive and defraud victims and taxpayers and to commit acts against public justice. When actions or inactions seek to downplay irrefutable evidence that would successfully prompt changes in the UK as a conspiracy theory to try to discredit whistleblowers or rightly concerned voters or similarly try to descope any reviews or to maliciously defend wrongdoing with obstruction to evidence requests and delays, we have proof of maladministration and elements of a corrupt regime.

On 1st December 2022, a response from the Chief Minister’s private secretary to Trevor Cowin explained why the process was correct. It was oddly legally precise. The Chief Minister’s private secretary has no published legal qualifications. It is usual for a Minister or senior civil servants to seek legal opinion in contentious matters from HM Attorney General (or his Chambers), particularly if they are not a lawyer such as the Justice Minister Jane Poole-Wilson. However the response appeared to have a number of red flags reminiscent of a qualified and experienced internal lawyer trying to help the organisation get away with a lack of integrity, with a lack of transparency, with wrongdoing, with a cover up of errors or errors of judgment, with gross misconduct. I concluded that the response was either copy pasted from an HM Attorney General (or his Chambers) email or drafted in its entirety by HM Attorney General (or his Chambers). A proper analysis of meta data would identify the source of any wrongdoing and therefore any improper efforts that seek to block evidence of any wrongdoing is a cover up of a cover up.

On 12th December 2022 I properly reported serious concerns based on email threads shared by Trevor Cowin to the Chief Minister’s private secretary for the attention of the Chief Minister. I highlighted with specific reference to the quoted and related legislation that the falsely claimed legal power to fire a Minister was not relevant to a Minister given the legal power does not apply to political office and given the legal definition of political office was a Minister or a political member:

On 12th December 2022 my email was “noted”.

On 12th December 2022 I received thanks from Rob Callister, presumably for trying to help stop a cover up.

On 13th December 2022, fearful of the cover up culture, in exasperation I forwarded my material evidence of iniquitous legal opinion to each member of the Tynwald Standards and Members Interests committee: Juan Watterson (chair), Daphne Caine, Tim Crookall, Michelle Haywood (recused as conflicted), Bill Henderson and Rob Mercer. I received acknowledgement of receipt without comment on contents from the chair Juan Watterson and a thank you from member Tim Crookall.

On 14th December 2022, I asked the committee chair Juan Watterson for an assurance that my reported concerns and my material evidence of iniquitous legal opinion would be included in the investigation into the firing of one of my constituency members of Tynwald.

On 15th December 2022 the committee chair Juan Watterson advised me very bluntly by email that the internal workings of the committee were none of my business.

At the time, I was not aware of a descoped timeline that would allow a cover up of problematic material evidence of actions and inactions that occurred outside a carefully considered and descoped timeline. The externalised independent investigator either did not receive my evidence of corruption or received my evidence of corruption but then did not consider or considered without reference in his final report. It is unclear if the clerk Jonathan King or the committee chair Juan Watterson decided to forward or not to forward my evidence to the externalised independent investigator. I logically concluded that the externalised independent investigator did not receive the material evidence because something as serious as iniquitous legal opinion would surely have been referenced in the final report. Therefore the report could not include any specific and overdue reforms in the recommendations. Were the other committee members overruled by the committee chair on adequate scope and if so should the committee report have included a dissenting opinion from one or more committee members?

Further I note that the report in paragraph 6 does not correctly state that the undocumented procedures were documented by the same clerk in September 2020 in an earlier precedent of an externalised independent investigation. How does the committee chair Juan Watterson explain away repeated serious and cumulative corporate governance failures by the same committee with the same committee chair in different investigations?

My working assumption was that there was an iniquitous legal opinion from HM Attorney General (or his Chambers) to help explain away a rushed and potentially well meaning but seriously flawed reactive process. I was entitled to believe that the HM Attorney General Chambers are not incompetent legislation specialists to entirely miss what I found without equivalent legal qualifications and therefore that reinforced an iniquitous legal opinion assertion: they came up with something to help a part of the public sector get away with something that went wrong. A mistake is a mistake but a cover up is wrongdoing.

I logically concluded that an iniquitous legal opinion from HM Attorney General (or his Chambers) advised the Chief Minister Alf Cannan to self-refer the matter to the relevant Tynwald committee in order to invoke parliamentary privilege in a similar bad faith and malicious defence to the recent sub judice smokescreen around parliamentary scrutiny of the circumstances of the Dr Ranson public sector whistleblowing case.

On 31st January 2023 in exasperation I filed a formal complaint with the Cabinet Office. I had logically concluded that an iniquitous legal opinion was either proactively supplied by or requested from HM Attorney General (or his Chambers) to try to silence an unpaid whistleblower now more sceptical of empty assurances but still willing to act in the public interest in the absence of paid officers willing to act in the public interest. The total cost of legal costs, compensation and entirely avoidable wasted disruptive department hours has a tangible impact on taxpayer funding and department efficiency and effectiveness. The damage to our international reputation is equally tangible but less quantifiable.

On 21st February 2023 I received a warning letter that my formal complaint was somehow groundless despite specific step by step explanatory notes and references to legislation as irrefutable proof of wrongdoing and that if I did not withdraw the formal complaint and file an amended formal complaint I would be banned from any further contact with the government on such matters, presumably to include any further evidence of corruption.

On 22nd February 2023 I contacted the named officer at the Cabinet Office by telephone. The officer verbally confirmed that the letter was based on carefully considered legal opinion from HM Attorney General but that they were willing to take full responsibility for a letter in their name. However, it was said in such a hesitant manner that it was immediately suspicious. I logically concluded that the legal opinion was iniquitous legal opinion solely intended to trick me into withdrawing the formal complaint with disregarded but irrefutable evidence and then banning me from any further contact with the government on such matters before I would be able to draft and submit an amended formal complaint.

On 28th February 2023, it was revealed in an externalised independent investigator report included in the committee final report that on 16th February 2023 Rob Callister MHK had sent an email to the committee:

Neither do I have any new information or evidence to present to the Committee.

It is unclear to me if he highlighted my evidence that he had acknowledged on 12th December 2022 because he refused to discuss the matter due to what could be falsely imposed tribunal and Tynwald Court sub judice limitations. However, he was aware that I had already shared my material evidence with every member of the committee on 13th December 2022.

Nonetheless, it is a duty of the committee chair Juan Watterson and a duty of the clerk Jonathan King to ensure proper consideration of all available and material evidence.

Seemingly there is a cover up culture where iniquitous legal opinion routinely emanates from HM Attorney General Chambers. It is iniquitous legal opinion that allows officers to close ranks without any accountability, that have forced so many other good employees to reluctantly leave the public sector with huge hidden costs absorbed by taxpayers and that is the crux of everything that has gone wrong with our government and parliament and oversight mechanisms.

HM Attorney General Chambers has falsely asserted that the UK iniquitous legal opinion doctrine does not apply in the Isle of Man presumably in the belief that a litigant in person would not be able to identify a relevant Isle of Man legal authority. Why? It required significant efforts to identify a relevant high court case to prove that the doctrine does apply in the Isle of Man. What I uncovered was that the government has installed special programmatic techniques to stop Google search results including keywords from the online judgments database. The project was based on — yes you guessed correctly — an iniquitous legal opinion from HM Attorney General Chambers that falsely claimed full search results would breach EU GDPR legislation. The EU GDPR legislation includes an exemption for open justice and judgments. It is an important component in the anti-whistleblowing strategy developed and refined by HM Attorney General Chambers to derisk the public sector whistleblowing policy. Litigants in person are not able to adequately research previous relevant cases with Google search to try to fight case specific wrongdoing caused by HM Attorney General Chambers. Online judgments are clearly deliberately not indexed by sector or by claim type or by tribunal member or by legislation or by legal authority. It is impossible for an Isle of Man employment tribunal to claim equality of arms is achieved by a litigant in person against the overwhelming resources of the state in a public sector whistleblowing case with any credibility. The human right to a fair hearing has been breached in most if not all such cases. I will explain in another blog post.

The Isle of Man needs your help to stop the corruption before it becomes unstoppable.

If you want to help stop the corruption contact us by email via tynwaldpapers@gmail.com in the first instance.