Richard Wright KC: ‘Litigation was not conducted to a satisfactory standard of competency’

Richard Wright KC’s independent review of the management of the Ranson vs Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) employment case has now been published.

The report that investigated the Isle of Man government’s management of the Dr Rosalind Ranson case found that “litigation was not conducted to a satisfactory standard of competency”, although Wright says this was not for any “sinister reason”.

The review, that is in eight parts, makes twenty four recommendations and has reached ten conclusions.

The report conclusions

He reached the following ten conclusions arising from the issues he was asked to consider and investigate in the Terms of Reference of this review:

• As an overarching conclusion I am satisfied that the defence of the litigation by the DHSC was conducted in good faith.  
• The decision to defend the claim was taken in accordance with established procedure, was legally justifiable and was an appropriate decision for the DHSC to make at the time that it was made.
• There was a clear conflict in the role of Kathryn Magson as Chief Executive with responsibility for providing instructions to the Attorney General’s Chambers in defence of the claim and her role as the principal witness to the events at the heart of the litigation. The failure to identify that conflict and take steps to mitigate its effect contributed to the loss of the litigation and was a serious error.
• The Attorney General’s Chambers failed to appreciate the significance and complexity of this Claim from the outset. They also failed to grasp the potential for significant reputational damage arising from these proceedings for both the DHSC and the wider Isle of Man Government. In consequence the defence of the Claim was under resourced throughout and that lack of resource was a major contributory factor to the loss of the litigation.
• The management of disclosure by the Attorney General’s Chambers fell far below the standards required. The failures in disclosure were the single most significant factor in the negative outcome of the litigation from the perspective of the DHSC. The disclosure failings also had a significant effect upon Dr Ranson and her mental health.
• Both of the appeals to the High Court pursued by the DHSC were properly brought in good faith and each identified properly arguable issues for the High Court to determine.
• The Paragraph 33 Appeal exposed a conflict between the narrow interests of the DHSC and the wider interests of the Government of the Isle of Man. The decision making surrounding the decision to pursue this appeal lacked clarity and openness. Further, the manner in which the decision was taken to lodge the skeleton arguments reveals that good governance had broken down in the DHSC at that time.
• There is no evidence that any documents were submitted to the Tribunal that were modified, false or deliberately misleading. I find myself sure and satisfied that this allegation, made in the course of the litigation but undetermined by the Tribunal, was entirely unfounded.
• I am sure that the DHSC did not deliberately withhold documents or make selective disclosures for an improper purpose when conducting the disclosure exercise.
• There was a failure by both the DHSC and the Attorney General’s Chambers to conduct regular strategic reviews of the litigation as it developed.

Richard Wright KC concluding remarks

In Wright’s concluding remarks he stated that “whilst the principal burden of this report has been to review the conduct of the litigation itself, I have not done so in an artificial legal vacuum. I am acutely aware that the Ranson litigation has had a devastating human impact on those embroiled in it, not least Dr Ranson herself”.

He added that one consequence of this litigation has been that “many decent and hardworking Civil Servants” have been subjected to a level of public scrutiny and censure that is both “unprecedented” and “unjustified”.

Generally, Wright found that whilst this litigation was “not conducted to a satisfactory standard of competency, that was not for any sinister reason”:

According to Wright’s report there were many instances in which systems had broken down and good governance was lacking.

Although he says that “these are all things that can be fixed and, in many respects, I have been encouraged to discover that learning has taken place and change has already voluntarily been enacted”.