FUJ00121637
FUJ00121637
Message
From: Holmes Jan R [/O=ICL/OU=UKSOUTH FELO1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HOLMESJ]
Sent: 07/06/2004 13:50:01
To: Lenton-Smith Colin [/O=ICL/OU=UKSOUTH FELO1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=LENTON-SMITHC]
Subject: Cleveleys
Colin,
I've just updated myself with the latest on this case and the news is not good.
Jim Cruise has taken early retirement so I ended up speaking to Mandy Talbot, who was his boss. The PM rejected the
offer that was made to her some time ago and a trial date has been set for August (I don’t know exactly when). POL are
staill taking advice as to how best to deal with this and Mandy's view/belief was that the safest way to manage this is to
throw money at it and get a confidentiality agreement signed. She is not happy with the ‘Experts’ report as she considers it
to be not well balanced and wants, if possible, to keep it out of the public domain. This is unlikely to happen if it goes to
Court.
She was talking about taking the option to admit the report and concede that the contents are an accurate reflection of
what happened (the HSH transcripts are an accurate reflection of what happened it's just the ‘Expert’ opinion is the
problem). The liability question is removed and it's then just about 'how much to go away and keep your mouth shut’.
One concern I have is that while they've been dickering about waiting for guidance from their agents, the trial date has
been set and it is now too late for them to enter a Witness Statement that might further repudiate the Expert's original
report. This means that their Council might have to have thorough briefing, by us, before going to Court.
Do we need to involve Mason's at this stage?
Regards,
Jan Holmes
Programme Assurance
GRO
i GRO
“This S-mnell iS only Tor the Use OF iS Intended recipient. Its contents are confidential and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that
this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.