Attorney General's Chambers
2 FOI requests | Full disclosure rate: 1700.0%
The Freedom of Information requests to the Isle of Man Attorney General's Chambers reveal an authority that is highly responsive to specific, factual queries regarding staffing, software costs, and high-profile charity oversight, yet systematically opaque regarding policy formulation, legal aid reform, and the evidentiary basis of criminal law. A recurring theme is the 'information not held' response, particularly concerning prosecution statistics (cases 379034, 2264429) and the scientific justification for drug scheduling (case 1623265), which suggests a fragmented data infrastructure where the AG's Chambers does not centrally aggregate operational policing data. However, this opacity is not absolute; the authority has been compelled to release sensitive contract details regarding legislative drafting (case 3992277) and has disclosed significant financial data on legal costs for defending public officials (cases 2021153, 2441298), indicating that while policy documents are often shielded by privilege or claimed non-existence, financial trails are increasingly visible.
Key Cases
Case 3992277 — This case represents a significant victory for transparency where the Information Commissioner overruled the Attorney General's Chambers' blanket refusal to release contracts with 'SEA PEGASUS DRAFTING SERVICES,' forcing the disclosure of cost-benefit analyses and unredacted contracts regarding legislative drafting.
Case 1216681 — Highlights a major conflict of interest in 'Operation Braid' involving former AG John Quinn. The authority confirmed the involvement of a UK barrister but successfully withheld specific details of the conflict under FOI exemptions, raising questions about accountability in high-level fraud investigations.
Case 4714237 — Provides concrete evidence of regulatory friction with King William's College, disclosing significant delays and re-submissions of annual accounts from 2021-2023, contrasting with the authority's frequent 'information not held' responses in other charity-related requests.
Case 1623265 — A notable refusal where the AG's Chambers admitted they do not hold the scientific or legislative foundation evidence justifying the classification of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, exposing a potential gap in the evidentiary basis for current drug laws.
Case 2374877 — Involves a partial upholding of a request for a legal aid review report by the late AG John Quinn. The authority refused release citing 'future publication' exemptions, arguing that premature disclosure would compromise policy formulation, a controversial stance on internal reviews.
Related FOI Stories
Legal Aid and Public Defence Scrutiny — #379139, #2374877, #2176273, #2176274, #2221316
High-Profile Litigation and Settlement Costs — #2021153, #2009761, #2441298, #2603077, #2374877
Criminal Justice Statistics and Drug Policy — #379034, #2264429, #1623265, #3937873, #3937874
Charity Regulation and Financial Oversight — #1746173, #3086365, #4714237, #4749973, #3984737
Legislative Drafting and External Contractors — #3356165, #3992277, #2572689, #1722493
| Date | Title | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 2022-04-07 | legal aid review report | Upheld - partial |
| A request was made for a legal aid review report written by the late AG John Quinn, which was refused under a qualified exemption for information intended for future publication. The authority determined that premature disclosure would compromise the Legal Aid Committee's ability to formulate fair policy without external influence. | ||
| 2021-03-25 | Attorney General and Independent Review Body for health care complaint | Upheld - partial |
| The requester asked for details on legal instructions and advice provided by the Attorney General's Chambers to the Independent Review Body (IRB) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) over the last three years. The authority partially upheld the request, refusing to disclose specific counts, summaries, or client identities for most questions due to legal professional privilege, while the response regarding a specific 2020 jurisdictional advice appears incomplete in the provided text. | ||