John Quinn's conflict of interest in operation Braid

Summary

The request sought details on why UK barrister Timothy Sinclair Green acted for the Isle of Man Attorney General in Operation Braid and the specific conflict of interest involving John Quinn. While the authority confirmed Green's delegated authority for the investigation, the specific details of the conflict of interest were withheld under FOI exemptions.

Key Facts

• Operation Braid is a joint criminal investigation between the Isle of Man and the UK into the activities of Paul Bell.
• Timothy Sinclair Green made the forfeiture application in the name of the Attorney General as required by section 50 of POCA.
• Green has delegated authority to exercise certain statutory functions of the Attorney General specifically for Operation Braid.
• The detailed conflict of interest between Attorney General John Quinn and Paul Bell was not disclosed.
• The Attorney General's Chambers determined that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the interest in disclosure.

Data Disclosed

• 1216681
• 2020-03-09
• 2020-03-17
• 16 March 2020
• section 50
• section 31
• section 32
• J1896

Exemptions Cited

• Section 31(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (information for criminal proceedings)
• Section 31(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (confidential sources)
• Section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (prejudice to prevention/detection of crime, apprehension/prosecution, administration of justice, and tax collection)

Original Request

Operation Braid is a major criminal investigation between the Isle of Man and the UK into the business activities, of Manx resident Paul Bell. It is alleged that Paul Bell is a very significant fraudster. 1.Why was it necessary for 'an application for the forfeiture of the cash' to be made by UK barrister Timothy Sinclair Green on behalf of the Isle of Man Attorney General? 2.For the purposes of operation Braid is Timothy Sinclair Green assuming the role of acting Attorney General? 3.What, in detail, is the apparent conflict of interest between the Isle of Man Attorney General (John Quinn) and alleged fraudster "Paul Bell" that necessitates the role being played by Timothy Sinclair Green?

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Attorney General's Chambers 2nd floor Belgravia House Circular Road, Douglas Isle of Man, IM1 1AE Telephone: (01624) 685452 E-mail: attgen@gov.im

Our ref: 1216681 16 March 2020

Dear ###

We write further to your request which was received on 9 March 2020 and which states:

"Operation Braid is a major criminal investigation between the Isle of Man and the UK into the business activities, of Manx resident Paul Bell. It is alleged that Paul Bell is a very significant fraudster. 1.Why was it necessary for 'an application for the forfeiture of the cash' to be made by UK barrister Timothy Sinclair Green on behalf of the Isle of Man Attorney General? 2.For the purposes of operation Braid is Timothy Sinclair Green assuming the role of acting Attorney General? 3.What, in detail, is the apparent conflict of interest between the Isle of Man Attorney General (John Quinn) and alleged fraudster "Paul Bell" that necessitates the role being played by Timothy Sinclair Green?"

Our response to your request is as follows: I have detailed below the information. Q1. Mr Green made the application in the name of the Attorney General as required by section 50 of POCA. Mr Green has delegated authority to exercise certain of the Attorney General’s statutory functions on a limited basis. The background facts giving rise to the application are set out in https://www.judgments.im/content/J1896.htm Q2. Mr Green has delegated authority to exercise certain statutory functions of the Attorney General in relation to a particular investigation known as Operation Braid. Q3. While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 31 and 32 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (“the Act”). First, by section 31(2)(a) the information requested is exempt from disclosure as the information was obtained or recorded by the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”) for the purposes of its functions relating to criminal proceedings that the AGC has power to conduct; additionally the information is exempt by virtue of section 31(2)(b) in that it relates to the obtaining of information from confidential sources. Second, by section 32 of the Act the information requested is exempt as disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice, by section 32(1), (a) the prevention or detection of crime; (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (c) the administration of justice; (d) the assessment or collection of a tax or duty or of an imposition of a similar nature, and by section 32(2) the exercise by any public

authority of its functions for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) or any civil proceedings brought as a result of the exercise of such a function. As sections 31 and 32 of the Act offer qualified exemptions, they are subject to a public interest test. The public interest must be something that is of serious concern and benefit to the public at large – it is not necessarily equated to what members of the public may be interested in.

Factors in favour of disclosure Enhancing accountability and transparency. Informing as to the basis for decisions made. Information that illustrates and preserves procedural fairness or means that justice is seen to be done. Factors in favour of withholding Public interest in suspected criminal offences being effectively investigated and prosecuted. The need to prevent disclosures which would be likely to prejudice either an ongoing investigation or the investigatory and prosecution processes generally, including prejudice to further investigations and future proceedings.

Disclosures prior to the conclusion of a court case could interfere with an individual’s right to a fair trial. The information requested constitutes the personal data of third parties.

In taking these factors into account the Attorney General's Chambers has determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information.

Please quote the reference number 1216681 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi.

I will now close your request as of this date.

Yours sincerely