Govt will fund any legal challenge by Chief Minister over McGrail Inquiry findings 

The cost of any potential legal challenge to some of the criticisms of Chief Minister Fabian Picardo contained in the McGrail Inquiry report will be funded by the Gibraltar Government in line with long-established principles, No.6 Convent Place said. 

The Government was reacting after Keith Azopardi, the Leader of the Opposition, said any such challenge should be paid by Mr Picardo himself, adding the taxpayer should not pay for “legal crusades” to overturn some of the findings in the report. 

Sir Peter Openshaw, the chairman of the McGrail Inquiry, found that on numerous occasions, Mr Picardo had attempted “grossly improper” interference in a live police investigation, although he also found there was no actual interference and the investigation proceeded its normal course.  

Those criticisms have generated furious controversy and calls for the Chief Minister’s resignation, but Mr Picardo believes they are unfair and could be challenged in a court through judicial review or a constitutional motion.  

He is taking “careful and detailed” legal advice before deciding any next steps. 

In a statement, No.6 said the GSD was attempting to frame “a standard procedure on payment of legal fees” as a personal matter for the Chief Minister, “which it is not”. 

It said the Cabinet had formally resolved that any legal challenge pursued by the Chief Minister against specific findings of the Inquiry will be funded by the Government.  

That decision was “a direct application of the Crown’s Indemnity, a long-standing principle in both UK and Gibraltar law, which ensures that public officials are protected from personal liability and legal costs arising from the discharge of their official functions.” 

The Government said its position was “entirely consistent” with the Civil Service Management Code and the HM Treasury "Managing Public Money" guidelines.  

“These regulations mandate that when a public servant - whether a police officer, a civil servant, or a minister - is criticised in an official capacity for actions taken in the bona fide performance of their duties, the Government is responsible for the costs of their legal defence and any subsequent review of those findings,” No.6 said in the statement. 

“A challenge to findings of the Openshaw Report which the Chief Minister may be advised are not based on evidence before the Inquiry, is therefore not a ‘private crusade’.” 

“It is a necessary legal process to ensure that the relevant characterisations of the actions of the Office of the Chief Minister are legally sound and procedurally fair.”  

“To demand that a holder of high office personally fund the defence of their official conduct would set a dangerous precedent, discouraging future leaders from taking decisive action for fear of personal financial cost.” 

“It would also be contrary to the practice applied in respect of Mr Azopardi's GSD colleagues who have had legal costs funded for them in respect of relevant proceedings affecting them.” 

Mr Picardo’s said the GSD’s suggestion that he should pay any legal costs himself was “legally flawed and constitutionally improper”. 

“It sets a potentially very dangerous precedent that Keith Azopardi suggests just for the cheap benefit of attacking me in a press release without thinking through the serious consequences such a position can entail in the long term,” Mr Picardo said. 

“Our policy on indemnifying public officers is applied universally, ensuring that all those who serve Gibraltar - from the police on our streets to the ministers in Cabinet - are protected when acting in their official capacity, as I was throughout the matters in respect of which I am criticised in the Report.” 

"This is the position in the UK also.” 

"Mr Azopardi’s attempt to treat the Chief Minister differently from any other public servant is a transparent political tactic.” 

“The principle is clear: if the conduct in question was performed as Chief Minister, the defence of that conduct is a matter for the State.”  

“We remain committed to the rule of law and the right to ensure that the findings of any inquiry are reached through a fair and accurate process and are appellable as provided for in law.”