POL00323842
POL00323842
From: Rodric Williams[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=RODRIC WILLIAMSE9C114F4-B03F-4595-B082-
CE89BE5C79D47B]
Sent:
To: Simon
Ce: Hugh Flemingtor
Crichton,
Subject: RE: The report of Helen Rose.
Thank you Martin.
Please disclose all information from the report that needs to be disclosed.
Please do so in the form of a new, standalone document (Helen presented the info in the form she did so as to provide
it to the Legal Department for its view).
Kind regards, Rodric
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
@) 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V SHQ
® Post Office stories
®© @postofficenews
© ostofficenews
From: martin smith;
Sent: 11 July 2013 09:46-~
To: Rodric Williams; Simon Clarke
Cc: Hugh Flemington; Susan Crichton; Jarnail A Singh
Subject: The report of Helen Rose.
Rodric.
Privilege.
LPP attaches to communications in connection with, in contemplation of, and for the purposes of adversarial
proceedings. I guess here you suggest that such privilege attaches by reason of POL’s contemplation of
adversarial proceedings involving Fujitsu. Certainly in the civil world that must be right.
POL00323842
POL00323842
However in criminal litigation the emphasis is on ensuring that a defendant is not prejudiced by the absence of
material which would otherwise assist him or undermine the case against him. Accordingly criminal disclosure
law trumps civil privilege, but only in circumstances where the material in question meets the test for
disclosure (undermines/assists).
Thus there are only a limited number of ways in which we can prevent disclosure of material which we would
otherwise be required to disclose to defendants:
1.
Seek a Public Immunity Certificate from the trial judge as we did in Samra. To achieve this we
would need to demonstrate a real public interest in non-disclosure — see paragraph 14 of my
advice on the topic in Samra.
Terminate the prosecution.
Why is Helen Rose’s Report disclosable
In terms of analysing Helen Rose’s report I consider there to be a number or issues:
1.
On 30/1/2013 GJ tells HR that:
“Tt isn’t clear what failed...”
“’,.the counter may have rebooted and so perhaps may have crashed in which case the clerk
may not have been told exactly what to do.” (my emphasis)
“Tt is quite easy for the clerk to have made a mistake....”,
All of these comments rather suggest that there may be Horizon issues plus training and
support deficits.
In her email of 13/2/2103 HR says: “I know you are aware of all the Horizon integrity
issues...”
This is an alarming statement for it is suggestive of the existence of Horizon issues and that
they were known to GJ. This has obvious implications for GJ’s court reports and appearances
and his silence therein.
HR’s ultimate conclusion is that this is not an issue which suggests a failing of Horizon itself;
rather it is an issue of data presentation, i.e. the problem appears to be that the ARQ logs do
not distinguish between system-generated and manual reversals, the answer being to create a
new column in the ARQ log to facilitate that distinction.
Whilst to a degree that is correct, given what I have said in 1 and 2 above that view may not be
entirely sustainable. It may be suggested that the report is at the very least suggestive of
Horizon issues.
The report in general terms reinforces the impression that GJ is not being entirely forthcoming
about Horizon issues. An example of this approach may be found within his response to HR’s
first question, where she asks: “...also could you explain what happens when the system fails?”
GJ does not begin to answer this question; he simply responds “....the system is behaving as it
should.”
POL00323842
POL00323842
If the system is behaving as it should then the answers I reproduce
in my Point 1 above are inexplicable.
5. Some may conclude from this that GJ’s aim is to protect Horizon from criticism rather than to
provide POL and the court with impartial and honest evidence.
In view of these matters I think that the information contained in the Helen Rose report meets the test
for disclosure. It should not be forgotten however that information would only meet the test in a
limited number of cases i.e. those where the defendant had conducted reversals and was blaming
Horizon.
In view of these matters I am in no doubt that this document is disclosable. On the LPP point I rather fear that,
if the matter were to come before a criminal court the judge would without hesitation order disclosure in the
appropriate case.
Accordingly you may take the view that I should attempt to redact, or summarise the report into a disclosable
document and in a form which serves the dual purpose of both disclosing that which should be disclosed whilst
protecting the non-disclosable sensitive material.
Kind regards,
Martin & Simon.
From: Rodric Williams,
Sent: 10 July 2013 16:15
To: martin smith; Simon Clarke
Cc: Hugh Flemington; Susan Crichton; Jarnail A Singh
Subject: FW: POL -v- Ishaq - Proposed letter to defence solrs
Further thought on privilege — if Helen’s investigation into this was undertaken purely for the Second Sight Spot
Reviews, the entire report could be privileged.
I attach a couple of emails which set out the basis on which we have sought to claim privilege over our work on the
Spot Reviews, including our communications with Fujitsu which sought to create a joint/common interest privilege.
Please let us know if Helen’s report is still disclosable in light of this.
Happy to discuss as necessary.
Kind regards, Rodric
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 10 July 2013 15:49
To: ‘martin smith'; Hugh Flemington
Cc: Jarnail A Singh; Susan Crichton
Subject: RE: POL -v- Ishaq - Proposed letter to defence solrs
POL00323842
POL00323842
Thanks Martin.
First point —- we presume that Helen Rose’s report is being disclosed because POL’s evidence in the prosecution
included an ARQ report. Is that right?
Second point - Helen Rose’s Report is marked “Confidential and legally privileged”.
I understand that she did this because she prepared the report to give to Post Office Legal for legal advice on the
implications of her investigation (please call her o confirm).
Please therefore consider what information from the report needs to be disclosed to Ishaq’s solicitors, and in what
format, i.e. whether parts of the Report should be removed or redacted (e.g. the “Recommendations” section), or the
non-privileged material (e.g. the background transaction data) repackaged for disclosure to the Defence.
If you advise that Helen’s report does not attract any privilege, please ensure the reference to privilege is removed
from the header (I don’t want to someone else to say that the Report is privileged, but that we waived thereby giving
rise to possibly difficult issues of collateral waiver).
Kind regards, Rodric
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
(oy) Post Office stories
© @postofficenews
From: martin smith [m.
Sent: 10 July 2013 10:56
To: Hugh Flemington
Cc: Jarnail A Singh; Susan Crichton; Rodric Williams
Subject: POL -v- Ishaq - Proposed letter to defence solrs
Dear Hugh,
Please find attached a copy of the letter which we propose, subject to your agreement, to send to
Ishaq's solicitors.
Kind regards,
POL00323842
POL00323842
Martin.
CartwrightKing
mu SOL CTT OR 5
Nottingham I Birmingham I Derby I Leicester I Sheffield I Newcastle Gateshead
Majority House, 51 Lodge Lane, Derby, DE1 3HB
www.cartwrightking.co.ukhttps://twitter.com/cartwrightking
http://www. linkedin.com/company/cartwright
king
This message is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you have received
this in error please delete this message and let us know by email or telephone.
A list of directors is available at each office. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
No:312459. VAT Registration No: 737837295.
Save a tree - and only print emails that you have to.
JES OB ID ISHII IIIS IIS IIS III SII III III II III II III II IIE
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.