Report to Chief Registrar

INVESTIGATION INTO COMPLAINT OF MR S HOLMES DATED 16TH JUNE 2011 CARRIED OUT BY PAUL W COPPELL, DIRECTOR OF COURTS & TRIBUNAL SERVICES Introduction On 16th June 2011 Mr Holmes submitted a complaint using the “comments form� provided at the Isle of Man Courts of Justice Public Counter.

The Complaints Process The General Registry Complaints Procedure requires that any verbal complaint be dealt with by the relevant officer or if requested investigated by a senior officer and that a report back is provided within 10 working days.

If a complaint is provided in writing, as in this instance, the form will be referred to an appropriate officer by the Chief Registrar, and in such circumstances, the same process would apply in that it may be referred to a senior officer.

Following the receipt of an initial acknowledgement, Mr Holmes in correspondence both to me and to the Chief Registrar, sought that the investigation be carried out by an independent appointee.

The Chief Registrar has determined that it is both reasonable and in line with procedure for the complaint to be carried out by the Director of Courts & Tribunal Services, as its most senior officer.

It should also be noted that the only involvement I have had with the matter in the past, was to accompany the then Chief Registrar at a meeting he had with Mr Holmes in 2006, at a time when I had no involvement in the Division and was there primarily to take notes.

The Complaint Whilst the content of what was provided contained much information, as part of the investigation process I have sought to clarify from its content the specific issues Mr Holmes wishes to complain about, though I accept that this was not made easy by the manner of submission in that it contained much obscure references and information and contained intemperate and abusive language. It is my view that the following is a list of the specific issues raised/alleged: 1. Documents were registered erroneously 2. Court staff had been instructed/directed by members of the Judiciary 3. High Bailiff Williamson had not acted appropriately 4. High Bailiff Moyle had not acted appropriately 5. The Court Form C1 is not correct/appropriate 1. Documents were registered erroneously Having reviewed the very many items of correspondence etc. in relation to this issue, I have determined that it is not appropriate or necessary to carry out a further fully comprehensive investigation.

The reason for this is simply as a result of the fact that, as indicated in the complaint, the matter had previously been investigated by the then Chief Registrar, Mr P R Corkhill in 2007, following which Mr Corkhill sent a letter to Mr Holmes in which it was stated that “it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously”. In that sense, it is clear therefore that the issue has already been investigated.

Whilst there would appear to be a question as to what impact if any this “error” may have had, given that the only issue with the documents registered was that of certification, it is clear that as the court had determined the issue, any challenge to the validity of such must be made via the legal process.

In addition, it is also noted that this issue has been raised by Mr Holmes on many, many occasions and in many differing forms, including in litigation.

2. Court staff had been instructed/directed by members of the Judiciary Mr Holmes contends that it is not appropriate for court staff to seek direction from the members of the Judiciary they serve.

Whilst it is easy to consider that the role of courts administration and the courts are completely distinct, and that in some large jurisdictions this may be the case to a greater extent than it is in a smaller jurisdiction such as the Isle of Man, it is my view that this cannot reflect the reality as to how every day process will work.

Using the example of an application of any kind being received by courts administration, whilst the great majority of “business as usual” activity is processed by administrative staff, prior to it being provided to the relevant Judicial/Legal Officer for preparation for and attendance at hearing, it is plainly obvious that where there is any doubt, clarification etc. as to whether a matter may be listed, that the presiding officer would expect, and the administrative staff seek, such clarification. To do otherwise would be to enable courts business to become stalled.

I therefore find that the complaint in this regard is without foundation.

3/4 High Bailiff Williamson/Moyle had not acted appropriately I have determined to deal with these two matters together as they are identical in terms of both issue and resolution.

When acting in a Judicial capacity such officers may only be investigated by two means: • •

Where in relation to a court decision made – by Appeal to a superior court Where in any other capacity – by following any relevant complaints process

In relation to the former, clearly this complaints process cannot consider such matters.

In relation to the latter, neither I nor the Chief Registrar has the jurisdiction or authority to investigate a complaint in relation to a Judicial Officer.

In addition, it is also noted that this issue has been raised by Mr Holmes on many, many occasions and in many differing forms, including in litigation.

5. The Court Form C1 is not correct/appropriate Mr Holmes contends that the content of the Court Form C1 is not correct with regards to statutory provision and also that certain elements of it are not appropriate.

The contents of that form are prescribed and are therefore a) the appropriate form and b) not able to be amended without due process.

That said, The General Registry must be cognisant of the need to keep its guidance, forms etc. under review and to process any required amendments where appropriate. I would therefore recommend that the issues raised in this regard are borne in mind at the appropriate time.

Additional Issues & Recommendations Whilst investigating this matter, I have had cause to become aware of the huge amount of documentation submitted by Mr Holmes and the resultant impact that this has clearly had, this includes: • • •

More than 25 formal complaints submitted Many attempts to litigate Vast quantities of correspondence

It is also clear that many of those items are duplicative and contain inappropriate, offensive and abusive content and that the approach taken by Mr Holmes could be considered as vexatious.

Whilst the General Registry must endeavour to processes matters it receives, its management is also under a duty of care to ensure that its officers and staff are not open to abuse etc.

In the light of this I would therefore recommend the following: 1. In relation to this matter specifically, that no further “complaints” are investigated unless the General Registry is satisfied that it contains matters which are sufficiently different to those addressed in this or previous reports/responses, so as to justify being considered a new complaint, and that any that are provided which are not are responded to accordingly 2. In general, that the General Registry considers whether it is it appropriate to allow its staff to face inappropriate, offensive and abusive behaviour from its customers without taking action to deal with such content

Paul W Coppell Director of Courts & Tribunal Services 27th June 2011