Government House has taken legal action to block details of an investigation into allegations of misconduct by a former police commissioner being shared with a prosecutor.

Lawyers for Rena Lalgie, the Governor, and her deputy, Tom Oppenheim, filed an application for a judicial review with the Supreme Court on Friday.

Government House is seeking to overturn an order from magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo that a report on the investigation into Stephen Corbishley should be presented to the Crown to assess if it should be disclosed as evidence in a trial against a police officer and his wife.

Sergeant Mark Monk is charged with using a phone to cause Mr Corbishley “annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety”.

He is also charged with attempting to pervert the cause of justice by harassing officers and falsely accusing them of perjury. He is jointly charged with his wife, Tricia, of harassing another senior officer, Superintendent Gillian Murray. They deny the charges.

The investigation into allegations of misconduct against Mr Corbishley was commissioned by Ms Lalgie in March 2021 and conducted by investigator Andrew Bermingham.

It is understood that a report was presented to the Governor by Mr Bermingham a couple of months later while the probe was still ongoing. But Ms Lalgie halted the inquiry before it could be completed after Mr Corbishley stepped down as Commissioner of Police in October 2021.

At a hearing in February, lawyer Jerome Lynch, KC, representing the Monks, said the findings of the inquiry into Mr Corbishley should be given to the Department of Public Prosecutions to assess if it was admissible as evidence.

Mr Tokunbo agreed with that argument and ordered Government House to hand over the report.

Saul Dismont, representing Government House, had argued that the report should not be disclosed because it was irrelevant to the case against Mr and Mrs Monk and fell under public interest immunity regulations.

At a hearing before Mr Tokunbo yesterday, prosecutor Alan Richards confirmed he had not received the report and had been notified by Mr Dismont that a judicial review application to overturn the magistrate’s order had been filed.

Mr Tokunbo described the application as “ridiculous”, while Mr Lynch accused Government House of taking “the nuclear option”.

Mr Tokunbo said: “It seems to me that they [the Governor’s lawyer] have taken an unusual step which is only going to arouse more public interest and speculation. It’s rather ridiculous really.”

Mr Lynch described the development as “very disappointing”, adding that it would result in further delays and increased public expense.

He said: “To that end it’s sad that ... after 14 or 15 appearances in court, we are no further forward.”

Mr Tokunbo adjourned the case until September 25. His order is on hold — or stayed — pending the outcome of the judicial review application.

After yesterday’s hearing, Mr Lynch said the delay could have been avoided had the Governor agreed to hand the dossier over to the Department of Public Prosecutions to be reviewed, adding that confidentiality could still have been maintained.

He said: “Where you’re claiming some public interest immunity that attaches to a document the starting point is that the Crown should have it to make a judgment themselves.

“They can then give it to the judge if they think it does have public interest immunity attached to it — it’s not for them to make a final decision on that — and we would need a ruling from the judge that it is so.

“So the only two people, other than those who have already seen it, who would potentially get to see it before it came to me would be the judge and the prosecutor.

“It seems to me to be the most obvious and sensible thing to do. I simply don’t understand this persistent resistance to disclosing a document.

“Frankly, if there is material in it that is not relevant or is properly kept out of the public domain then you can redact it. Why can’t we have the report with certain redactions? I don’t know if that has been considered or not.”

Mr Lynch described Mr Corbishley as “a principal witness” in the Monk trial.

He said: “It is simply not right that we should not know what it is that people have said about him when he was being investigated.

“That’s quite separate from any public interest in the document that might exist, so it seems to me that on those two separate rungs there are considerations that really ought to be taken into account in deciding whether all or part of this report should be disclosed.”

Mr Lynch repeated his frustration at mounting delays that the Monk case — and other trials — had undergone.

“Things do take so long it is not an acceptable position to be in and I’ve had to press very hard in cases that I’ve represented people in who have waited a long time,” he said.

The Royal Gazette tried to obtain a copy of Mr Bermingham’s report into Mr Corbishley through a public access to information request.

However, Ms Lalgie rejected the request and Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez upheld the denial earlier this month, on the grounds that the misconduct inquiry “was discontinued without any resolution of the allegations”.

Ms Gutierrez said she “carefully reviewed” the report by Mr Bermingham and agreed with Government House that it was an “update” and not a report of a completed investigation under the Police (Conduct) Orders 2016.

Mr Dismont, on behalf of the Deputy Governor, said last night: “We have no comment to make on the magistrate’s remarks.”

He said Mr Bermingham’s report was held by the Governor in her official capacity under the Police (Conduct) Orders 2016 and was “material that the public interest requires to be excluded from disclosure, as has been independently confirmed by the Information Commissioner” in her July 5 decision.

Mr Dismont said Mr Oppenheim was ordered by Mr Tokunbo to disclose the report to the DPP "subject to any application for a judicial review of that order“.

He added: “The Deputy Governor has a duty to support the administration of justice, which in these circumstances requires a judicial review of the decision of the Magistrates’ Court to summon him to attend court with a document he does not possess.

“Further, the review is sought to confirm that the Magistrates’ Court cannot order the disclosure of documents protected by public interest immunity.”