Malfeasance in public office case struck out

Acting Deemster Linda Sullivan, sitting at Douglas Court House, on Tuesday (20^th May 2008), acceded to the request of the Department of Education, Department of Home Affairs and the General Registry to strike out the action, brought by litigant Stephen Holmes, alleging malfeasance in public office by various public officials.

 

Mr Holmes, who appeared as ‘litigant in person’, was disappointed but not surprised by the decision; having been on the receiving end of several claimed ‘injustices’ over a period of four years.

 

Mr Holmes had brought the action following his successful appeal, in October 2007, to have two ‘erroneous’ Court Orders revoked.

 

Mr Holmes tried, at the commencement of the hearing, to have the respondents’ strike out motion struck out, for having failed to file skeleton arguments in time, but Acting Deemster Sullivan rejected his motion.

 

Rob Long, representing the Departments and the General Registry, claimed that the action by Mr Holmes was an abuse of process, vexatious, frivolous and in places scandalous.

 

He argued that Mr Holmes’ case suffered from ‘want of proper form’ and failed to meet the test set out in the case Davis & Davis v Radcliffe. He said it was unarguable that the action had no chance of succeeding.

 

Mr Long acknowledged that mistakes had been made, by staff at the General Registry, in respect of the filing of Court Orders, from the Lancaster County Court in England; but that they were not dishonest mistakes.

 

He informed the Court that the Departments, their officers and the police, could not be held responsible for the actions of Deputy Deemster Williamson; and even the admission that the Orders had been revoked did not assist the plaintiff with his case.

 

He said that Mr Holmes claimed mental torture, and was seeking punitive damages of £800,000, but the woeful lack of pleadings, in respect of malfeasance, on its face meant that on its face it failed.

 

Acting Deemster Sullivan inquired what the test is for malfeasance in the Isle of Man.

 

Mr Long replied that it is the Manx Ices case and this was built on the Three Rivers case.

 

The ingredients required were it had to involve a public officer, the exercise of power, and the state of mind of the officer. Thereafter, targeted malice, or the officer acting knowing he had no power to act, had to be demonstrated. What is not covered, he said, is a mere oversight or the like.

 

Mr Long continued that the Petitioner had not demonstrated any deliberate act of dishonesty, malice or intent in his pleadings; but what he had complained about was that he had not been granted unfettered access to his children.

 

He reiterated that the ‘erroneous’ filing by the General Registry was a mistake and nothing else; and he said that this was characterized in the Petition.

 

Mr Long again pointed out that the officers in the Department of Education, and the police, acted in the genuine belief that the Court Order, issued by Deputy Deemster Williamson, was valid; a point he and Acting Deemster Sullivan concurred that until revoked the Order was valid.

 

In respect of claimed breaches of the Human Rights Act 2001 (HRA), Mr Long said that the matter complained about predated the appointed day order for the coming into effect of the HRA; and it did not apply retrospectively. In any event, he did not think the plaintiff had proved any of his points and the Act didn’t make provision to offer the relief the plaintiff was seeking; namely punitive damages.

 

Mr Long put to the Court that Mr Holmes had essentially attempted this action previously and it had been struck out. Therefore, this amounted to multiplicity of action and that effectively it was an abuse of process and estoppel.

 

He also pointed out that even though Mr Holmes was currently pursuing the matter through the Courts he had persisted in bombarding the respondents with complaints and correspondence; regardless of having been requested to desist.

 

In closing, Mr Long thought that Mr Holmes was likely to carry on with this course of action until he got what he wanted; but in respect of this particular course it was doomed to failure. Therefore, he requested the Court to exercise its discretion and strike out or dismiss the action at this point.

 

In responding to Mr Long’s motion, Mr Holmes put up a spirited defence but was hampered by his lack of legal support. In fact it was announced, at the commencement of the Court hearing, that the person who had been assisting Mr Holmes with his case had died the day before. However, Mr Holmes elected to proceed with the case.

 

He maintained that the issuing of the ‘erroneous’ Court Order in November 2004 and been completely incompetent and that Deputy Deemster Williamson’s action had been a scandalous abuse of process.

 

He claimed that the Court Order, which was revoked at Appeal in 2007, had been used as an injunction by the Police, which had resulted in him being arrested 3 times; and threatened with criminal charges.

 

Mr Holmes made it clear that he was intending to exercise his right to free speech to voice his opinions of the actions of various parties; and Deputy Deemster Williamson was one of several people who Mr Holmes directed his ire.

 

Mr Holmes said that he had been criticized for not appealing the Orders sooner; but he inquired, how was he to know they had been incorrectly registered when that information was not known to him earlier.

 

He put to the Court that although the HRA was not officially in force it had had persuasive force in advance of the appointed day order; but that Deemster Doyle, in respect of Article 8 (private and family life), had been more interested in allowing consensual buggery in private residences than the rights’ of children.

 

He labelled the staff in the High Court office “utterly incompetent”; and that one member had tried to cover the back of another when it was discovered that ‘certified’ copies of the Lancaster County Court had not been registered. Furthermore, he claimed that the Court held no supporting documentation as was required.

 Acting Deemster Sullivan interjected that the Courts relied on evidence and not supposition.

Mr Holmes replied that when he finally obtained copies of the ‘registered’ copies there was no supporting documentation.

 

Acting Deemster Sullivan was not impressed and informed Mr Holmes that he had “not really grappled with Mr Long”. She went on to explain to Mr Holmes that Mr Long “has laid out the relevant matters for malfeasance. Your Petition doesn’t address the necessary ingredients.”

 

An adjournment was agreed to allow Mr Holmes time to “rally” his thoughts. He was told he had provided a history of events but that he had not “got to grips with Mr Long’s submission”; and that unless he addressed the points a judgement would be made on the merits of the case.

 

On resumption Mr Holmes stated that there was no doubt that he had a grievance against three parts of government but that it was very difficult for a litigant in person to get the information he required to fight his corner.

 

He admitted that his Petition may not be perfect but that all the information required was there.

 

He pointed out that after he was arrested in Birmingham, in 2007, and unlawfully detained, he received a payout of £2000 from the West Midlands Police; but that he hadn’t received so much as an apology from the High Court office.

 

He maintained that their actions amounted to maladministration and malfeasance. What they did was just unlawful, he added.

 

He said that he had not obtained the information he needed about the ‘registration’ of the Court Orders until the Appeal in 2007; and that it had been necessary to “bombard” people with requests because he kept coming up against a blank wall. This had resulted in him lodging complaints about a lack of due process, which he described as “the backbone of legislation”; and that in this case it had failed.

 

“I have tried to resolve the issues, outside of the Court, but I have been ignored” he stated.

 Mr Holmes gave an example of one instance where he felt the system had been unfairly against him.

“I was blackmailed by Deputy Deemster Williamson into agreeing to one Court Order as otherwise he was going to make a criminal injunction against me. He was a disgrace to the legal profession” he asserted.

 

He claimed that the Courts did not understand the law relating to children and that they are the ones of paramount importance.

 

He compared the ‘registration’ of the English Court Orders with the registration of an ‘execution order’ from Singapore, which he claimed would have no more force in the IOM than the English ones, but that on the basis of his experience he expected it would be acted upon!

 

He claimed the respondents were attempting to hid 99 cubits behind 2 inches of error. Had the Court in July 2004 adjourned for 30 minutes, to check the documents, the four years of distress, arising from the 100 seconds Deputy Deemster Williamson had allowed himself to make a decision, could have been avoided.

 

Another short adjournment was taken before Mr Holmes returned to finalize his submission.

 

He stated that he firmly believed that the case should be heard but, thinking on his feet, he made the suggestion that perhaps the action should be adjourned to allow his outstanding complaints to be investigated; perhaps by the Attorney General’s office or another independent person. He reiterated that as nobody would listen to him he had been faced with no alternative but a Petition of Doleance and implored Acting Deemster Sullivan to either strike out the respondents’ motion or to adjourn the matter.

 

Acting Deemster Sullivan informed Mr Long that she didn’t need to trouble him to respond unless he had a particular issue he wished to make.

 

Mr Long said he just wished to make clear that there had been no attempt at a ‘cover-up’ in the High Court office, as all that had been sought, from Lancaster, were copies of the Orders; which was to make sure they were the same as the ones held in Douglas.

 

Acting Deemster Sullivan then launched into her judgement with some alacrity - the reason becoming apparent a short while later when Mr Holmes asked for a break to compose himself and she said she had a plane to catch - dismissing Mr Holmes’ claims as she went along.

 

She made it clear that in her mind no dishonesty, bad faith or intention to damage the plaintiff in the actions of the respondents had been evidenced by Mr Holmes; and that the type of torture envisaged in Article 3 of the HRA was not comparable to that which Mr Holmes claimed.

 

There was no evidence that Deputy Deemster Williamson had set out to ‘punish’ Mr Holmes and that he could have appealed the Orders but did not. She said that the action he had launched was completely the wrong one to pursue the type of damages he was seeking.

 

She said that the officials at the DHA and DOE could only act on the directions given to them and that no evidence had been supplied by Mr Holmes that demonstrated malfeasance.

 

She ordered that the relief sought by the respondents be granted.

 

Editor’s Note: Andrew Williamson retired in January 2008.

 The Manx Herald strongly believes that this case adds further weight to the urgent need for an ombudsman service in the IOM to address maladministration by government ‘officials’.

Add to: del.icio.us | Digg