The Attorney General and the Governor are among several parties being sued in the High Court in the latest actions by Steven Holmes, who is seeking redress for having been the victim of an ‘erroneously’ filed Court Order in 2004.

Mr Holmes has filed two petitions and the initial hearing was held today (Thursday), in Douglas Court House, before Deputy Deemster Andrew Corlett.

Mr Helfrich, of the Attorney General’s Chambers, appeared on behalf of the General Registry in respect of the first petition and the A.G. and the Governor in respect of the second.

Mr Holmes appeared as litigant in person and – having confirmed he hadn’t yet filed a supporting affidavit, clarified with Deemster Corlett that the action would normally be a chancery petition and not a common law matter, and that it could be changed - explained some of the reasoning for his latest legal action.

Quoting Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case, he claimed there had been impropriety, illegality and unlawful conduct in the initial cases he had been embroiled in. He said that he believed his latest actions were in the public interest in the hope that what had happened to him could be prevented in the future.

Deemster Corlett said one of the first issues though to clear was the matter of whether Mr Holmes had appealed the ‘offending’ Orders.

Mr Holmes said he hadn’t Appealed but that the action had been moved to the Staff of Government by the Court.

Mr Helfrich, joined in the discussion and said he may as well inform the Court he would be submitting a motion to strike out the actions. He said that the matters had been extensively litigated and indicated that the remedy sought by Mr Holmes was discretionary and implied that the Court should be using its discretion to halt the actions.

A ‘mysterious’ feedback on the audio system then momentarily interrupted proceedings - and perhaps it is a matter that should be properly investigated, as it seems a similar problem occurs quite frequently.

Mr Helfrich continued that the matters could have been appealed, but were not, and that what Mr Holmes sought was not the appropriate remedy.

Mr Holmes said he did petition in January but counsel for the defence had twisted his action, saying it wasn’t a Petition of Doleance but a damages action and had convinced Deputy Deemster O’Sullivan that was the case and it was struck out.

An impassioned Mr Holmes suggested that if parties had acted illegally the remedy was a Petition of Doleance. He stated that their had been no investigation of the actions of the General Registry or the Governor, from whom he had sought assistance in 2006, only to be told to seek legal advice, but he had been there before to no avail; in that he faced the difficulty of being the only one who was right.

Deemster Corlett, in trying to be helpful to Mr Holmes, referred to section 9 of the Human Rights Act and said that set out the manner in which a challenge could be made to a decision of the court, and that was the appeal process.

Mr Holmes responded by saying that was all very well but he had approached 17 lawyers for assistance, including Deemster Corlett’s colleague Kevin O’Riordan, who he said had got it all wrong, and that effectively nobody wanted to “put their head above the parapet” and act for him.

Mr Corlett inquired about Paul Beckett, but Mr Holmes said he felt ‘conflicted’ as he had acted as Amicus Curiae in an earlier case. So how was he to get competent legal advice, inquired Mr Holmes.

Deemster Corlett suggested he try the Law Society, but Mr Holmes replied that he had tried that as well; so Deemster Corlett said he could not go any further than that.

He then inquired how much time Mr Holmes needed to file his affidavit; to which Mr Holmes replied three weeks - and Mr Helfrich did not object.

Deemster Corlett assumed correctly that Mr Helfrich would like to see the evidence before he issued his motion to strike; and gave Mr Holmes until 31^st July to file.

As Mr Helfrich was going on holiday in August he was given until the 25^th August to file his response and a date for directions was set for 18^th September.

Mr Helfrich then made the point that although not respondents, the Department of Education and the police were substantially involved, by the allegations of an abuse of the plaintiff’s Human Rights, and that they should be noticed parties.

Deemster Corlett agreed that it was a good point and was a matter he had intended to raise himself; and also who else should perhaps be notified.

Mr Holmes interjected that the police had used a civil order as an injunction, which ended up with him being arrested three times and being charged with ridiculous offences, so he did not have any objection to them by included. He also asked if Deemster Corlett would make a Court Order to force the police to hand over information he had been attempting to get from them. Deemster Corlett said he wouldn’t be making an Order today.

Although Mr Holmes was less than satisfied with the conduct of the Department of Education he didn’t think it was necessary to include them.

Deemster Corlett decided that the Departments of Education and Home Affairs should both be noticed parties ,and that Mr Holmes should include in his affidavit a disclosure application regarding the information sought from the police.

He then wondered if the West Midlands police should also be notified; but Mr Holmes thought that unnecessary - as for a start they were outside the jurisdiction of the IOM Courts, as was another person he had referred to in his petition - and he had only included the West Midlands police as an example of someone who had acted improperly; but in their case they had held up their hands to it, so there was no need to involve them.

Mr Holmes helpfully suggested that if the General Registry “held up their hands” and offered him an out of court settlement then the matter could be resolved.

Deemster Corlett put it to Mr Holmes he wasn’t seeking damages in this action.

“No, but I will be” replied Mr Holmes. He explained that he would be seeking punitive damages from the High Court office and the police because, as a result of their actions, he had been prevented from having a family life for 4 years. He said he had been to hell and back during that time; and all because of a piece of paper.

“For me it is the most sensible action” he concluded.