Arising from the Chief Ministers statement in Tynwald today has been a fairly robust debate concerning whether MHKs are being effectively prevented from asking questions by claims that matters relating to a recently concluded IOM Employment Tribunal should be regarded as being sub judice. Rightly it seems strange that a mere employment tribunal, and especially one where a verdict has been already reached and published, could result in legitimate questions of public interest not being answered in the Court of Tynwald. So we thought we'd look into some of the differences between the definitions of sub judice contained in both the UK and IOM Parliamentary Standing Order papers.
The word-for-word comparisons are below. And as a result we humbly ask, given the undeniable public interest in the Dr Ranson case and some of the allegations made in relation to Members of Tynwald, are we currently being adequately served as the Tynwald rules on sub judice appear to gag what our MHKs can say in Keys a lot more than UK MPs would be gagged in Parliament?
From the UK Parliament Standing Orders
Link to Order Paper:
Resolution of 15 November 2001
Resolved, That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice:
(1) Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.
(a) (i) Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued, or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been granted.
(ii) Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or, in cases dealt with by courts martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review.
(b) (i) Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgement or discontinuance.
(ii) Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.
(c) Appellate proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are active from the time when they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal until ended by judgment or discontinuance.
But where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the opinion of the Chair a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues or the case may be made in motions, debates or questions.
(2) Specific matters which the House has expressly referred to any judicial body for decision and report shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question, from the time when the Resolution of the House is passed until the report is laid before the House.
(3) For the purposes of this Resolution—
(a) matters before coroner’s courts or fatal accident inquiries shall be treated as matters within paragraph (1)(a);
(b) ‘Motion’ includes a motion for leave to bring in a bill; and
(c)‘ Question’ includes a supplementary question.
From the latest Tynwald Standing Order paper
Link to Order Paper:
“sub judice” includes any civil case in which papers for the commencement of proceedings have been filed in the office of any court or tribunal, whether or not they have been served on or communicated to the other party or any criminal case where a person has been charged or summoned to appear at court. A case will remain sub judice until it is discontinued, or judgment has been or verdict and sentence have been delivered and until the time for appealing has expired; it will continue to be sub judice after papers for the commencement of any appeal have been lodged until judgment or discontinuance.
Arising from the above the public might have some more questions as to why we have deliberately extended things to cover Tribunals in the IOM given that the bulk of Employment Tribunals heard here seem to involve IOM Government workers. Are you free Mr Skelly?
