DHSC Staff Misinterpreted Chief Minister Email

Staff at the DHSC misinterpreted an email from the Chief Minister to be an instruction to lodge an appeal in the Dr Rosalind Ranson tribunal.

What was actually a village green picnic compared to the circus that was the Dr Ranson tribunal, the issue of the appeal was blown all out of proportion due to the political fallout that followed.

The Richard Wright KC review has also found that staff at the DHSC, without their knowledge, did not have the written delegated power to act as they did. It later transpired they don’t need written authority.

The appeal was launched following an order that followed the outcome of the tribunal. However, it did not challenge the tribunal outcome, that Dr Ranson was unfairly dismissed after making protected disclosures, rather that the tribunal’s order would have required an advocate to breach legal professional privilege.

However, the problem arose when the advice from the AG’s Chambers, which was no longer representing the gov, and CallinWild which had been pointed, differed, with the former saying lodge the appeal, the latter saying not to.

The matter was also highly time sensitive so could not go to CoMin to be decided as a skeleton argument was required to be lodged by 4pm on Wednesday September 28.

During this time, minister Rob Callister had been out of the office on official business before going home.

Alf Cannan then gave his opinion in an email that the DHSC should appeal. Mr Wright said: ‘He did not intend that to be a direction and indeed it could not have been a direction.’

In the absence of Mr Callister, three senior staff (Gef has taken the decision to withhold their names) within the DHSC interpreted this email to be a direction and the order was given to lodge it.

Mr Callister and Mr Cannan also spoke about it and agreed to proceed, but Mr Callister was told the appeal had already been lodged when he spoke to DHSC officials that afternoon.

Delegated Powers

The final issue of this is whether the staff had the authority to act as they did.

Mr Wright said: ‘Withheld believed that she was entitled to give the instruction in any event under powers delegated to her.

‘In fact, unbeknown to her (and all those concerned) written delegations had not been signed.’

He added: ‘ Whilst process and good governance had undoubtedly broken down in many respects, ultimately the decision was one that the minister agreed with and would have taken himself had he been available.’

Mr Wright also noted that in the ‘great scheme of this litigation the appeal had no practical impact or consequence other than as to costs’. and that he ‘cannot overstate how unfortunate it is that the issues surrounding the lodging of this appeal have gained such prominence in the history of the Ranson litigation’.

However, the issue became so prominent due to a war of words between Mr Callister and the current DHSC Minister Lawrie Hooper.

In May 2023, Mr Hooper told Tynwald: ‘I can confirm that the decision to file the skeleton argument was made by officers in the department using powers properly delegated to officers from the Minister under the government departments Act 1987.’

Mr Callister denied that he had signed this, which Mr Wright agreed with.

However, he also noted: ‘There is in fact no requirement for a delegation to be in writing and there is a good argument that (redacted) was acting under an unwritten delegation of authority in any event given the context and the fact that there was general agreement in the Department that the direction of CoMin would be followed.’

He also found that no civil servants should be left in the situation that the DHSC staff were left in and that if a situation like this were to arise again, then it should be escalated upwards for more senior government figures, such as the Chief Minister or high ranking civil servant to deal with.

We have corrected an earlier version of this story which only stated that officers had acted without proper authority.