The First Deemster has dismissed a doleance claim by Paul Bell against the Solicitor General.
Mr Bell’s claims concerned the handling of International Letters of Request (ILORs) from the UK as part of Operation Bannock.
Arguing that Timothy Sinclair Green KC acted unlawfully when responding to ILORs in connection with a UK investigation into alleged tax fraud and money laundering, Mr Bell’s also questioned the Isle of Man’s consent to share materials with UK authorities.
At the time, Mr Green was acting with the powers of the Attorney General due to a conflict of interest with the then acting AG.
He also sought an order mandating the central authority to reconsider the transmission of information.
Deemster Corlett ruled that the Solicitor General had acted lawfully in recognising Mr Green’s authority under section 20 directions issued in 2014 and 2015.
He said: “The SG was entirely correct in reaching her own conclusion that the section 20 direction given by the Treasury Minister was sufficient to empower Mr Green to respond to the ILORs.”
Requests
The dispute centred on whether the directions lawfully authorised Mr Green to handle requests concerning Operation Bannock.
Mr Bell’s legal team argued that the delegation was only valid for matters strictly related to Operation Braid, a separate Isle of Man investigation into alleged money laundering activities linked to the same case.
Addressing this issue, Deemster Corlett said: “Any reasonably informed individual reading the direction would readily conclude that it covered any criminal matters concerning the claimant, Mr Bell.”
He emphasised that although the operations in the UK and the Isle of Man were distinct, they were “very closely linked”.
Rejected
Deemster Corlett rejected the argument that the Solicitor General lacked the statutory power to receive ILORs, saying: “The intention of Tynwald in enacting section 21 is clear, namely that the Attorney General has the power to receive requests for mutual legal assistance from other jurisdictions.”
In dismissing Bell’s claims, the Deemster concluded that there were no legal grounds to question the Solicitor General’s handling of the ILORs or the delegation of functions to Mr Green.
Deemster Corlett also said that it was his “provisional view” that Mr Bell should pay the Solicitor General’s costs in relation to this matter.
4 Comments