Govt & GSD row over who should pay for CMs legal costs should he challenge Inquiry report's findings

The Chief Minister has described the GSD’s call for him to personally fund a challenge to the findings of the McGrail Report as “legally flawed and constitutionally improper”.

Fabian Picardo says 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.

However, the GSD asks how Mr Picardo’s meetings with a then suspect or his lawyers, or communications described as “grossly improper”, fall within the scope of his ministerial duties.

The Government says it regrets the GSD's continued attempt to frame a standard procedure on payment of legal fees as a personal matter relating to the Chief Minister - which it says, it's not.

The decision on funding has been made by the Cabinet, which it stressed again, is based on the direct application of the Crown's Indemnity, and relevant codes and guidelines, which ensures that public officials are protected from personal liability and legal costs arising from the discharge of their official functions.

It therefore rejects the GSD's criticism that it's a "private crusade".

Fabian Picardo says the Opposition leader’s suggestion would set a dangerous precedent and says he fails to consider its long-term consequences.

He adds it's the same position in the UK, and calls Keith Azopardi's attempt to treat the Chief Minister differently from any other public servant, a transparent political tactic.

However, the Opposition Leader says it should be obvious that acting in a "grossly improper" way to attempt to interfere in a criminal investigation would never be within a Chief Minister's duty.

On that basis, Mr Azopardi says it is difficult to see how the Government can justifiably endorse the spending of public money.

He adds that it is striking this is apparently a Cabinet decision, which he says shows the entire group of Ministers backing the payment of Mr Picardo’s legal fees to challenge findings that he attempted to interfere in a criminal investigation and acted well outside the role and duties of Chief Minister.

In a further statement, the Government says the allegations of improper meetings or interference did not happen in the manner described in the report.

It accuses the GSD of attempting to use the Inquiry's contested findings as a shield to prevent those findings from being challenged in the first place.

The Government says the decision to pursue a judicial review will not be taken lightly and will be based on senior legal advice.