As the ADT lies within the administrative responsibility of the Crown Division of the Chief Secretary’s Office (CSO), papers will need serving on the CSO; with the possibility of Chief Secretary, Mrs Mary Williams having to put in an appearance before Deemster Kerruish.

The longstanding battle between ‘victim of system failure’, Stephen Holmes and various officials, continues to chalk up an ever growing list of defendants.

During the last few weeks Mr Holmes has commenced several new actions in the High Court.

In the first, on Monday 6^th April, in the Chancery Division, he took the initial steps in attempting to have a complaint against his former legal representative, Kevin O’Riordan reconsidered by the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT).

Mr Holmes claims that (among others) Mr O’Riordan’s negligence in the way a case, in which he was involved, was dealt with about 5 years ago, resulted in a catalogue of errors that has had a seriously detrimental impact on Mr Holmes’ life.

Mr Holmes alleges an earlier complaint was not properly handled by the ADT and wants it reopened.

As the ADT lies within the administrative responsibility of the Crown Division of the Chief Secretary’s Office (CSO), papers will need serving on the CSO; with the possibility of Chief Secretary, Mrs Mary Williams having to put in an appearance before Deemster Kerruish.

Two further actions were in court on Thursday 9^th April, again before Deemster Kerruish, for directions.

One is seeking leave to appeal, out-of-time, against an Order made by Deemster Doyle, in March 2008; but it is the other action which is the more intriguing.

This is an action involving Peter Corkhill of the General Registry and, when papers are served on him, retired deputy Deemster, Andrew Williamson.

It is unusual for judges (or former judges) to be, potentially, held to account for their actions, in this manner; but the Manx Herald understands Mr Holmes intends to contest what happened outside the court as much as what happened inside it.

Mr Holmes was given 28 days to prepare his case and serve papers on his Honour, and the case will return for further ‘directions’ on the 7^th May.

Meanwhile, a sizeable claim for damages against the police for, among other things wrongful arrest and false imprisonment is in the hands of the force’s insurers; but may also end up in court.

An action against a judge and other authorities in England – where the sorry saga has its roots - has also been lodged with the courts. Mr Holmes says he is employing the ‘Richard Gidney approach’, in that if Mr Gidney could be ‘bound by jurisdiction’, then surely a judge, who, he says, acted as if the IOM is part of England, can also be.

The Manx Herald some how doubts Mr Holmes will have much success going down this route with this action; but sympathizes with Mr Holmes as to why he would like to see this judge in court.

Progresses of Mr Holmes’ various actions, and his pursuit of justice, will, of course, continue to be followed, and reported on, by the Manx Herald.