Examples of Staff of Government Division in a sentence
Appeals 91 Confiscation orders: appeal by prosecutor[P2002/29/31](1) If the Court of General Gaol Delivery makes a confiscation order the prosecutor may appeal to the Staff of Government Division in respect of the order.(2) If the Court of General Gaol Delivery decides not to make a confiscation order the prosecutor may appeal to the Staff of Government Division against the decision.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an order or decision made by virtue of section 79, 80, 87 or 88.
On this aspect of the case alone, each of the judgments of the Deemster and the Staff of Government Division covered 40 pages or so, and any summary is bound to do their careful judgments an injustice.
Variables with possible values of Yes and No were measured based on nominal scales in which order did not matter.
As indicated above, not all of the reasoning of the Staff of Government Division is entirely clear.
It follows that the Staff of Government Division was right to find that the KFG Companies had established that the Appellants were proper parties to the Counterclaim against BITEL for the purposes of MHCR, Ord 6, r.
Third, the Appellants say that the KFG Companies ought to have shown that they would not have received justice in Kyrgyzstan in the future; allegations of specific corruption in the past could not be sufficient without evidence (to the appropriately high standard) of continuing corruption; and the Deemster and the Staff of Government Division should not have found that allegations of endemic corruption were justiciable.
The reasoning of the Staff of Government Division on this aspect is not easy to follow but there is no doubt that its starting point was correct, namely that the question is whether there is a risk that the KFG Companies would not obtain justice in Kyrgyzstan.
Second, the Staff of Government Division should not have held (at [345]) that it should “give effect to the orders and declarations of the English and BVI courts rather than those of the Kyrgyz courts in so far as they conflict”, because the Staff of Government Division had not been asked to give effect to any orders of the English or BVI courts.
Those errors were sufficient to justify the Staff of Government Division in exercising the discretion itself.
The Board is satisfied that the claims against BITEL and the claims against the Appellants involve one investigation or are closely bound up together, and that the Staff of Government Division was right to hold (at [149]) that the factual issues were interwoven in such a manner that the case against each of the Appellants demands a single investigation.