Review of HM Attorney Generals Chambers (Isle of Man): Executive Summary

Summary

The requester sought the Executive Summary of a 2015 review of HM Attorney General's Chambers commissioned by the Chief Minister, and the Cabinet Office confirmed that all requested information was provided.

Key Facts

• The review was commissioned by the Chief Minister in 2015 due to the prolonged indisposition of the Attorney General.
• Miss Michelle Norman, Acting Head of HM Attorney General's Chambers, initiated the request for the review.
• The review examined the structures, ethos, and working practices of the Chambers to improve performance.
• Sally Hobbs CBE assisted in facilitating group meetings during the review process.
• HM Attorney General's Chambers assumed responsibility for summary prosecutions in 2009.

Data Disclosed

• 2017-04-20
• 2017-06-23
• 2015
• 2009
• 14 years
• 15 pages
• IM85068I
• IM1 3PN

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

1

REFERENCE NUMBER: IM85068I

REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2015 (“the Act”) We write further to your request received on 20 April 2017, regarding the following information:
“A copy of the Report the previous Chief Minister obtained as it related to the Offices of Attorney General .” On 21 April 2017 this request was clarified in the following terms:
“…Peter Karran and Alan Bell had referred to in the house. My understanding is that it was carried by a QC from across, in 2015… I am certain it is a Report that Alan Bell had. The uniqueness of this type of document must be in minds of people and chief secretary.” On 16 June 2017 we had a conversation, confirmed by email the same day, where it was agreed that your request was to be updated to: “A copy of the Executive Summary of the report regarding the Office of the Attorney Generals Chambers.”
Response to your request
Thank you for your patience and understanding with this, we are pleased to be able to provide the attached in response to your updated request. 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 to the FOI Co-ordinator, Cabinet Office, Government Office, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PN. An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/freedom-of-information/freedom-of- information-review-request-january-1-2017/ , a paper copy can be requested by contacting the Cabinet Office direct.
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 apply for a review of decisions by the Information Commissioner, for a decision on;

Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PN Tel: (+44) 01624 686244 Fax: (+44) 01624 685710 Website www.gov.im/co
2

1) Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Act; 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 rights to review is on the Information Commissioner’s website at: https://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. Review of HM Attorney General’s Chambers (Isle of Man): Executive Summary

1

The Review of H.M. Attorney General’s Chambers (Isle of Man) Executive Summary

(A) Introduction

At the request of the Chief Minister, Miss Michelle Norman the Acting Head of H.M. Attorney General’s Chambers commissioned me to undertake a review of its structures and the manner in which it discharges its responsibilities. My terms of reference were:

“To examine the factors affecting the manner in which H.M. Attorney General’s Chambers discharges its responsibilities with particular reference to its structures, ethos and working practices; and to make recommendations for strengthening its cohesiveness and improving its performance.”

Miss Norman’s acting role arises from the prolonged indisposition of the Attorney General. Whilst it might be thought unusual for a review of this nature to be commissioned and undertaken in the absence of the head of the organisation, there were compelling reasons for doing so. I did meet the Attorney General during the process. His input was very welcome, constructive and supportive.

I offer special thanks to all who assisted me but especially Sally Hobbs CBE who joined me to facilitate a number of group meetings. Her role in the project expanded and her knowledge and experience of management and operational issues was invaluable. Biographical notes of both Sally and myself are at Annex A.

(B) Background

H. M. Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”) provides the full range of legal services required by the Isle of Man Government. This includes advice to Departments, Statutory Boards and other central government bodies in relation to domestic and international issues; as well as litigation and other non-contentious services such as conveyancing and the drafting of commercial and other contracts. It is also responsible for legislative drafting and the prosecution (including advocacy) of all criminal cases before the courts in the Isle of Man together with support through mutual legal assistance arrangements for cases in another jurisdiction where evidence from the Isle of Man may be relevant. Commencing in 2009, AGC assumed responsibility for summary prosecutions—previously a police responsibility.

The Attorney General also has a number of responsibilities (some statutory) relating to advice to the Crown and to Tynwald which he must handle personally.

The demands on AGC have expanded and changed over the past 14 years as modernisation and globalisation has made the process of government more demanding. New areas of law include those arising from the enhanced role of the EU, data protection, human rights and the letting of more complicated commercial contracts-as well as the wider prosecuting role. This trend is likely to continue, particularly given the proposal that the Island adopt Freedom of Information legislation. AGC has responded but on an ad hoc basis—reacting to change rather than planning for it. Management systems are very limited.

The present structure of AGC comprises a Civil Division headed by the Government Advocate (which undertakes litigation and some advisory work including that done within the Civil Non-Contentious team), a Prosecution Division headed by the Director of Prosecutions responsible for all criminal cases and a Legislative Drafting Team, headed by the Chief Legislative Drafter. There are two singleton lawyers, one advising on international matters and the other more generally, and a team Review of HM Attorney General’s Chambers (Isle of Man): Executive Summary

2

of two lawyers handling matters relating to financial crime and mutual legal assistance. All these report directly to the Attorney General. In addition, there are two administrative support teams-one dealing with corporate administration and the other supporting the Prosecution Division.

AGC has a Senior Management Team comprising the Attorney General, the heads of the larger legal teams (Government Advocate, Director of Prosecutions, and the Chief Legislative Drafter) and the Corporate Development Manager. However, its role is not clearly understood or necessarily accepted by staff, albeit that some steps have recently been taken to try to address this.

Against this background, there were concerns about the resilience of AGC emanating from various sources-some from clients and also from stakeholders in the criminal justice system. The most substantial and overt have been directed towards the Prosecutions Division including through the political process with concerns expressed in Tynwald receiving significant media coverage. One Member of the House of Keys described AGC as badly organised with the Prosecution Division being in “total disarray”.

The extended absence of the Attorney General also highlighted difficulties from a constitutional perspective arising from the lack of an effective deputy for that office, given that the Attorney General is the only Crown Officer in AGC. Whilst the creation of the temporary post of Acting Head of Chambers has resulted in cover being provided for most of the Attorney General’s functions, it is a Civil Service, rather than a Crown, appointment and, for example, the post holder is unable to discharge the responsibilities to the Crown or attend sittings of Tynwald in place of the Attorney General.

(C) Overarching findings

Context:

The Attorney General’s Chambers provides under one roof the full range of legal services which a government might require although there is some outsourcing for reasons of capacity, potential conflicts of interest or specialist need. Responsibilities range from advising on the niceties of international tax information exchange agreements through the application of European Union Law to activities in the Island and the conduct of litigation to the provision of prosecution services. This inevitably raises substantial challenges for an organisation which has an establishment of only 24 lawyers (in addition to the Attorney General himself) and 16 administrative and other support staff. In some jurisdictions this work would be spread across several different organisations. For example, in England and Wales the work of AGC would be split between the prosecuting authorities (Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office), Treasury Solicitor’s Department (litigation and some advisory), Parliamentary Counsel (legislative drafting) and departmental legal advisers. In addition, the Attorney General’s Office in London acts as a “headquarters” and focuses on that work which either must be done by the Law Officers personally (e.g. by statute) or have his imprimatur; or which is referred because of its importance, complexity or sensitivity.

In significant respects, the AGC has risen to that challenge and I received evidence containing many plaudits for the industry, skill and professionalism of individual lawyers. It was equally clear that the differences between many aspects of its work mean that the AGC does not have the natural cohesiveness which one might expect in an organisation of its age and standing. Splitting the work between several smaller organisations is not a realistic option since it would inevitably increase costs and reduce flexibility and resilience. This puts strong leadership and sound management at a premium if the AGC is to succeed in delivering the consistently good level of service required by the Isle of Man. However, some staff attitudes and behaviours, especially towards management, seem to increase the separation to the point where AGC was frequently described as “more a collection of Review of HM Attorney General’s Chambers (Isle of Man): Executive Summary

3

individuals than an organisation”. In reality, there have been no effective arrangements in place to manage the AGC as a modern government legal and prosecution service for a number of years, and previous leaderships did not extend to forward- thinking management. There has been a tendency to focus on the aspects of the Attorney General’s responsibilities which most closely reflected their particular experience and background. As a result, the structure of the organisation, its responsibilities and the way it discharges them, and its management arrangements, have all developed in a piecemeal way. Arrangements for management were, and remain, unstructured, and some basic elements of good governance are absent.

The Prosecution Division operates in a difficult environment; the criminal justice system in a recent report was found to be largely inefficient. However, relationships between the Prosecution Division and its key stakeholders, the judiciary and the police, are poor, and there is no constructive dialogue on where or how performance needs to improve. Relationships with the judiciary in the Court of General Gaol Delivery have reduced to an unacceptably low level, and are characterised by an absence of mutual respect that is poorly disguised, and needs to be addressed as matter of urgency. There is an absence of confidence in the Prosecution Division which is affecting confidence in the system as a whole and the reputation of the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Key findings:

 The AGC has some able staff, amongst both its lawyers and non-legal staff, but the current structures, and the absence of good management, mean that the organisation is neither making the most of those resources, nor getting the best out of them.

 The work undertaken by the litigation and advisory functions was regarded by clients as generally satisfactory. In the latter case turnaround times were good but not consistently so. The advisory function is fragmented and there needs to be greater oversight and responsibility for adjusting caseloads as necessary, and some element of quality assurance. The approach to outsourcing and dealing with conflicts of interest needs to be reviewed.

 Clients were also generally satisfied with work of the commercial team. Timeliness was generally good, with the odd exception. Relationships are based on personal contacts, and the team regards itself as ‘self-managing’. However, as a result there is a risk of differing levels of service, and an element of selectivity in the work that is undertaken, which needs to be addressed.

 The drafting team received strong positive feedback from legislating departments on the quality and general timeliness of Bills. The same was true of the other specialist functions including those relating to international law, financial crime and mutual legal assistance.

 The work of the Prosecution Division has suffered from an absence of proactive management particularly since it assumed responsibility for prosecuting summary cases in 2009. The assumption of responsibilities was poorly handled, in part because of an absence of interest and knowledge by the organisation in the principles of good management and managing change. The memorandum of understanding with the Isle of Man Constabulary governing procedures remains unsigned. Insufficient attention was paid to genuine staff shortages in 2010-2011.The level of performance then began to attract criticism.

 2011 saw the nadir of the Prosecution Division which resulted from the poor preparation for the transition, staffing issues and the lack of management, and management skills within the AGC to cope with the crisis. The consequence is acknowledged to have been some poor decision making; lack of review in relation to cases already charged by the police; and a hand Review of HM Attorney General’s Chambers (Isle of Man): Executive Summary

4

to mouth existence which resulted in actions which should have been undertaken between hearings not being done—in some instances in breach of specific directions by the courts. Pro

[Response truncated — full text is 45,607 characters]