A false legal opinion from HM AG Chambers had already wrongfully ended a pending investigation by the Tynwald Ombudsman into gross maladministration by the Legal Aid Committee and cover ups of uncovered scandals linked to the civil legal aid crisis.

The legally unqualified complainant was scandalously forced to decide to allocate significant unpaid hours as a technical specialist to uncover the truth either iniquitously or incompetently concealed by HM AG Chambers that drafted the legislation and that had a duty of due diligence to supply a lawful legal opinion.

The Tynwald ombudsman has unclosed the pending investigation but continues to reject any assessment request to confirm jurisdiction to justify further significant unpaid hours to meticulously collate further evidence, draft explanatory notes only to support the adequately filed evidence and explanatory notes already filed.

The complainant has not received an apology from the legally qualified Tynwald Ombudsman about the error in law that the complainant identified.

The complainant has not received an apology from HM Attorney General with statutory responsibility for effective line management to prevent any such false legal opinions.

The complainant is disappointed that the Tynwald Ombudsman refused to disclose the false legal opinion either on the basis that it had already automatically lost legal privilege as an iniquitous legal opinion or on the basis he had the right to waive client legal privilege and that breached the open justice legal principle and breached the natural justice legal principle to remedy the maladministration by HM AG Chambers.

The complainant has not received any compensation for exactly the same wasted hours that HM AG Chambers demands from others with intimidation and blackmail and fabricated legal argument in civil legal aid to public authorities at £250 per hour that mocks the £150 per hour to an injustice victim civil legal aid advocate — if they are actually able to successfully progress civil legal aid despite the civil legal aid crisis.

Perhaps legally the Tynwald Ombudsman unexpectedly infringed copyright in private research supplied to the Tynwald Ombudsman in confidence by disclosure to HM AG Chambers with an unauthorised derivative work without express consent of the copyright holder.

A formal complaint process with an error in law demonstrates the importance of AI technology to litigants in person in public sector legal matters.

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024, 15:01 Ombudsman wrote:

Thank you for your enquiry.

The Tynwald Commissioner has no authority under the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011 to investigate any matters concerning the administration of Legal Aid or any aspect of Legal Aid complaints procedures (including the Legal Aid Committee).

Your general concern about the publication of Court decisions by the General Registry is not something which I have power to investigate, as it does not involve a specific decision of the General Registry made in respect of you. I have no authority to investigate matters “at large” in the way in which, for example, a Tynwald or other public inquiry could engage.

This being the case, I regret that I am unable to investigate the complaints which you have raised.
….

From: Graeme Jones
Sent: 18 December 2024 15:56
To: Ombudsman
Subject: Re: pending formal complaint clarifications

Thank you for your fast response.

I am confused because I was specifically directed by Treasury Social Security Division that I had the right to refer my complaints to yourself within 6 months.

I wish to clarify that the General Registry have published tribunal judgments but specifically decided to refuse to publish a directly relevant High Court judgment dated 6th November 2023 and therefore the information in the published judgments is clearly not only incomplete and inaccurate and one sided (extreme bias) and libellous but allowed to continue as such and that must surely amount to maladministration in breach of human rights contrary to open justice and access to justice.
….

If you want to help stop the floutlaws contact us by email at TynwaldPapers@gmail.com in the first  instance.

————————-

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024, 16:27 Ombudsman wrote:
….
As Tynwald Commissioner I am constrained to act within the powers given to me under the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011.

The absence of a review mechanism for decisions of the Legal Aid Committee is because there is a gap in the legislation. HM Attorney General’s Chambers is aware of this (the issue, by coincidence, having first been raised by a complainant only last week). Confusion arises because the current published Legal Aid Complaints Policy (I attach a copy for you) in error states that decisions of the Legal Aid Committee may be reviewed by the Tynwald Commissioner. This error has been drawn to the attention of its Chair.

This being the case, I regret that I am unable to investigate the complaints which you have raised.
….

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025, 22:08 Ombudsman wrote
….
For the reasons which I previously gave you, the Tynwald Commissioner does not have authority to investigate maladministration or service failure on the part of the Legal Aid Committee….

From: Graeme Jones
Sent: 03 January 2025 01:10
To: Ombudsman
Subject: Re: pending formal complaint clarifications
….
1.
On further online research and AI based analysis, I wish to draw your attention to a Council of Ministers order (attached) that includes the Legal Aid Committee within scope.
….

#####

Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011
….
SCHEDULE 2
LISTED AUTHORITIES
1 Listed authorities
The following bodies and offices are listed authorities—
(a) Departments;
(b) Statutory Boards;
(c) local authorities;
(d) a joint committee of two or more local authorities;
(e) a joint board being a body corporate established under an enactment and consisting of members appointed —
(i) by 2 or more local authorities; or
(ii) by the Department of Infrastructure and one or more local authorities;
(f) the Manx Museum and National Trust;
(g) the Civil Service Commission;
(h) the Attorney General’s Chambers;
(i) the General Registry;
(j) the Chief Secretary’s Office;
(k) Industrial Relations Officers appointed under section 5 of the Trade Disputes Act 1985; and
(l) Laxey Glen Flour Mills Ltd.

2 Other listed authorities
A person is also a listed authority if he or she is for the time being specified in section 3 of the Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007 except—
(a) the Chief Minister;
(b) a Minister;
(c) a Member of a Department;
(d) the Clerk of Tynwald and any officer serving in the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office.

#####

Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007
….
3 Liability of designated persons
….
(2) The following are the designated persons referred to in subsection (1) —
….
(l) any other public officer, Government officer or trustee (who holds office by virtue of membership of a public body) who is specified in an order made by the Council of Ministers.

#####

PERSONAL LIABILITY (MINISTERS, MEMBERS AND OFFICERS) ACT 2007 (DESIGNATED PERSONS) (No.2) ORDER 2008

In exercise of the powers conferred on the Council of Ministers by section 3(2)(l) of the Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007, and of all other enabling powers, the following Order is hereby made :-
1. Citation and commencement
This Order may be cited as the Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007 (Designated Persons) (No. 2) Order 2008 and, subject to section 5(3) of the Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007, shall come into operation on 19th December 2008.
2. Designated Persons
The following public officers, Government officers or trustees (who holds office by virtue of membership of a public body) are specified as designated persons under section 3(2)(l) of the Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007 –
….
(l) Members of the Legal Aid Committee constituted under section 23 of the Legal Aid Act 1986 or any person referred to in section 23(2) attending in a Members place;

From: Ombudsman
Sent: 03 January 2025 09:53
To: Graeme Jones
Subject: RE: pending formal complaint clarifications
….
I have now referred HMAG’s Chambers to the point which you make regarding the Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007 (Designated Persons) (No. 2) Order 2008 SD 908/08, and await their response.

Please bear with me, and I shall contact you again once their advice has been received.
….

From: Ombudsman
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025, 09:58
Subject: TCA 2024/0010 G Jones / Legal Aid Committee
To: Graeme Jones
….
I have now received clarification from HM Attorney General’s Chambers which, reversing their previous advice, confirms that the Legal Aid Committee is a Listed Authority under the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011 and therefore within my jurisdiction to investigate.

The technical background is as follows:
Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011 Schedule 2 paragraph 2 includes in the definition of Listed Authorities any person “for the time being specified in section 3 of the Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007 except the Chief Minister, a Minister, a Member of a Department and the Clerk of Tynwald (and any officer serving in the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office).
Section 3(2)(l) Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007 includes in the definition of designated persons “any other public officer, Government officer or trustee (who holds office by virtue of membership of a public body) who is specified in an order made by the Council of Ministers”.
Attached is a copy of the Personal Liability (Ministers, Members and Officers) Act 2007 (Designated Persons) (No. 2) Order 2008 SD 908/08 (“2008 Order”)
The 2008 Order refers to 19 entities which are under the Order specified as designated persons. Amongst these (paragraph l) are “Members of the Legal Aid Committee constituted under section 23 of the Legal Aid Act 1986 or any person referred to in section 23(2) attending in a Members [sic] place”.
….

From: Graeme Jones
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025, 10:09
Subject: Re: TCA 2024/0010 G Jones / Legal Aid Committee
To: Ombudsman

….
1. Please clarify that we have referenced the same primary legislation.

Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011
….
18 Obstruction and contempt
(1) If —
(a) a person, without lawful excuse, obstructs the Commissioner in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions; or
(b) a person does any act or fails to take any action in relation to an investigation which, if the investigation were a proceeding in the High Court, would constitute contempt of court, the Commissioner may apply by petition to the High Court for the person to be dealt with in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) If such a petition is presented, the High Court may inquire into the matter and after hearing —
(a) any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the person in question; and
(b) any statement which may be offered in defence, may deal with the person as if the person had committed a contempt of court in relation to the High Court.
(3) If a person —
(a) without lawful excuse, obstructs the Commissioner in the course of the Commissioner’s functions; or
(b) with the intention of obstructing the Commissioner in the course of the Commissioner’s functions, destroys or falsifies any document or other evidence relevant to those functions;
that person commits an offence.
(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (3) is liable—
(a) on conviction on information, to custody for not more than 2 years, a fine, or both; or
(b) on summary conviction to custody for not more than 6 months, or a fine not exceeding £5,000, or both.
(5) No-one shall be liable to be prosecuted for an offence under subsection (3) if a petition has been presented under subsection (1) in respect of the same conduct, and no-one shall be the subject of a petition under subsection (1) if a prosecution has been commenced against him or her in respect of the same conduct.
(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) is to be construed as applying to —
(a) any action taken by the listed authority in question;
(b) any power or duty of the listed authority to take further action with respect to any matter being investigated.

2. Please confirm that all TCA primary and secondary legislation was:

(1) explained to you via induction; or

(2) available to you to familiarise yourself with the role and with explicitly included or implicitly excluded public sector statutory bodies as a legally qualified appointee.

3. Please clarify why you then directly sought conflicted legal opinion from the heavily implicated HM AG Chambers to confirm whether or not that the Legal Aid Committee were a listed authority when it would or it should have been adequately obvious from induction or from familiarisation with legislation.  Surely only the listed authority should only have been contacted to expressly state that the listed authority was subject to a complaint and subject to investigation and the summarised basis of the legal power to investigate.  The listed authority would have been able to directly seek legal opinion from HM AG Chambers but it would have been a disruptive vexatious abusive and otherwise unreasonable call on inherently unfair taxpayer funded no win no fee legal services on steriods when no win no fee legal services are illegally banned to litigants in person trying to stop cover up culture decisions and highly selective breakdowns in the rule of law decisions that disproportionately directly impact public sector whistleblowers.

4. Please confirm my understanding from your written comments that you unequivocably received a false legal opinion (either iniquitous or incompetent) that I was forced already under extreme stress to legally challenge the false legal opinion to stop you dismissing my complaint.  If you agree the impossible to believe coincidence of a false legal opinion was iniquitous given HM AG Chambers drafted the relevant secondary legislation and already proactively acting against me against the public interest to evade decisions to fire specific corrupt employees with overwhelming evidence of corruption, you will surely agree that an iniquitous legal opinion automatically loses any legal privilege and it is a matter of general public importance and urgent to either publish a public statement or privately supply a copy of the false legal opinion to the directly impacted victim for the victim to rely on in important investigations and legal proceedings inside and outside the Isle of Man mindful of reputational risks to the Isle of Man of any failure to act in the public interest.  Alternatively, if you agree the false legal opinion was incompetent surely you need to act to protect trust and confidence in the entire Isle of Man regulatory framework given the serious implications of the source of the false legal opinion.  You will surely agree that it is impossible to cover up the existence of a false legal opinion from HM AG Chambers.

5. Please confirm that section 18(1) expressly defines your legal power to act in such situations to protect the reputation of the TCA and the entire Isle of Man regulatory framework and to directly refer the matter to the High Court to indirectly impose imprisonment and/or a penalty up to £5,000 on such an offender in line with contempt of court and contempt of the duty of candour and contrary to Isle of Man Law Society rules without lawful excuse.  Please clarify whether or not you have refused to hold to account the supplier of an iniquitous or an incompetent false legal opinion amd if you have refused to act please clarify how I am expected to progress section 18(5) in the event of your failure to progress section 18(1), for example, a police crime report or a formal request to the conflicted HM AG or to the HM LG or to the ECHR in the absence of a practical or effective remedy.  I am concerned that if you disagree that actions with the capability to stop a valid complaint are absolutely not ok without exception then we have far larger corporate governance problems that will never be effectively stopped by TCA maladministration oversight and unfortunately it naturally follows that any proposed further resources at significant cost to the taxpayer could be impossible to justify if HM AG Chambers are allowed and know they are allowed to act with impunity in maladministration matters.  The police complaints commissioner role appears to have become meaningless for similar reasons.  I have not even received an apology with a commitment to process improvements as an indicator of acceptance, opportunity to offset cumulative gaslighting to date, remorse and desire to reform to stop the maladministration that no reasonable taxpayer wants to tolerate or to fund.

From: Ombudsman
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025, 10:30
Subject: RE: TCA 2024/0010 G Jones / Legal Aid Committee
To: Graeme Jones

You have no standing in the matter of the advice which was provided to me by HMAG’s Chambers. In light of further information, their original opinion was revised. I am satisfied.
….

[the lack of any objection to maladministration ironically “protects” that maladministration by a highly paid legally qualified HM AG Chambers advocate competent in more complex legal matters and completely and utterly ignores the fact that the complainant supplied the further information but that if the complainant had not distrusted the legal opinion the pending Tynwald Ombudsman investigation would have remained conveniently but unfairly and unlawfully closed by a false legal opinion from HM AG Chambers as per a wider malicious defence policy to enforce dishonestly requested and wrongfully awarded costs orders as part of an unethical legal strategy to financially, emotionally and medically crush public sector whistleblowers despite absolute proof of corruption as a warning to dissuade any potential future public sector whistleblowers]