Paul Anthony Bell (Appellant) v His Majesty’s Solicitor General (Respondent) (Isle of Man)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0008

Jurisdiction

Isle of Man

Parties

Appellant(s)

Paul Bell

Respondent(s)

His Majesty’s Solicitor General

Issue

Does the Appeal Division have jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the High Court Act 1991 if it has refused permission to appeal (to itself) from the High Court? Does the JCPC have jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal in circumstances where the Appeal Division has refused to grant permission to appeal to itself from a ruling of the High Court? Did the Deemster err in his construction and application of section 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991?

Facts

The appellant, Mr Bell, has been the subject of two closely related criminal investigations in the UK and the Isle of Man. The first, referred to as “Operation Braid,” was an investigation into money-laundering and related offences alleged to have been committed by Mr Bell and was conducted by the Isle of Man Constabulary. The second (having the codename “Operation Bannock”), was a UK investigation conducted by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) and the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) which centred on offences alleged to have been committed by Mr Bell relating to tax evasion and money laundering. During these investigations, there was mutual co-operation and assistance between the Isle of Man and the UK, part of which involved the issuing of and responding to mutual International Letters of Request (“ILORs”). Owing to a conflict of interest on the part of the Attorney General, on 21 November 2014, the Chief Minister directed pursuant to section 20 of the (Isle of Man) Interpretation Act 1976 that all the functions of the Attorney General conferred by statute in relation to Operation Braid should be delegated to a UK barrister (Mr Green KC). On 18 February 2015, a further direction was made pursuant to section 20 of the Interpretation Act 1976, amending the first direction to include all functions conferred upon the Attorney General by statute “in relation to Operation Braid and associated matters.” Between 2014 and 2022, Mr Green KC received and responded to a series of ILORs from the UK concerning Operation Bannock. In June 2023, Mr Bell’s solicitors raised for the first time the issue whether Mr Green KC had the power to exercise the Attorney General’s functions in relation to Operation Bannock or in respect of the ILORs. His solicitors wrote to the Attorney General’s Chambers on 27 June 2023 disputing Mr Green KC’s power to respond to the ILORs by virtue of the section 20 direction. His Majesty’s Solicitor General (“HMSG”) responded on 4 August 2023, confirming that Mr Green KC was sufficiently empowered to receive and respond to the ILORs by virtue of the direction properly given by the Treasury Minister pursuant to section 20 if the Interpretation Act 1976. Moreover, she indicated that the enquiries she had undertaken and the information she had received on the matter confirmed that the scope of the direction covered the provision of responses to ILORs in relation to Mr Bell. Subsequently, Mr Bell brought a doleance claim against HMSG whereby he sought judicial review of the decision dated 4 August 2023. The principal remedy sought was a declaration that Mr Green KC acted unlawfully when exercising the Attorney General’s mutual legal assistance functions in relation to the ILORs concerning Operation Bannock. The First Deemster (Deemster Corlett) dismissed the claim. He held that the power to receive ILORs was provided by section 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (“CJA 1991”) and as that was a statutory function it could properly be the subject of a direction to Mr Green KC under section 20 of the Interpretation Act. Mr Bell sought permission to appeal against the First Deemster’s ruling on the basis that he had erred in his construction of section 21 CJA 1991. However, on 1 April 2025, Mr Bell’s application was refused on the papers by Judge of Appeal Cross KC. Following a renewed oral application for permission to appeal pursuant to rule 14.3B(3) of the Rules of the High Court of Justice 2009, the Appeal Division (Judge of Appeal Cross KC) again refused to grant permission to appeal on 15 May 2025. On 23 June 2025, Mr Bell applied to the Appeal Division for permission to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (“JCPC”). On 8 July 2025 the Appeal Division (Judge of Appeal Cross KC) held that the Appeal Division had no jurisdiction in these circumstances to grant permission to appeal to the JCPC. Mr Bell now seeks permission directly from the Board to appeal to the JCPC.