JARB0000124
JARBO000124
From: Nick Wallis) _
Sent: Fri 09/02/2024
To: James Arbuthnot:
Subject: From my book re the CCRC referrals - hope this helps
Attachment: 20181121 0640 NW to CCRC Urgent re Postmasters under CCRC review.pdf
Attachment: 20181121 1021 Lord Arbuthnot to CCRC re Postmasters review.pdf
See passages below from my book.
Also attached:
Letter from CCRC to Jo Hamilton 31 August 2018
Email from me to the CCRC dated 21 November 2018 0640
Email from you to the CCRC dated 21 November 2018 1021
Letter from CCRC to Jo Hamilton dated 28 November 2018 telling her something very different to their letter of 31 August.
Passages from book as follows
p311 (Hardback edition)
"On 31 August I pressed the button on a six-week crowdfunding campaign — hustling hard on social media and begging
every friend, family member and contact I had to stump up some cash and spread the word.
The same day I launched my crowdfunder, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which had been looking at more than
two dozen Subpostmaster cases for more than three years, issued a bizarre letter. ‘Apart from a small number of points of
clarification,’ it told applicants, ‘the investigation phase of the CCRC’s review is complete. We are now in a position to
move into the decision-making phase of the cases this autumn.”
I was astonished. I knew that civil and criminal law ran along separate tracks, but could it be possible the CCRC was
proposing to ignore the wealth of evidence that was surely going to come out of the litigation? Was it some- how
inadmissible to its criminal deliberations?
T assumed either the CCRC already had enough to refer the Subpostmaster applicants to the Court of Appeal, or it was
legally unable to consider any evidence which the litigation was going to produce. There was, of course, the insane
possibility the CCRC was just about to tell its Subpostmaster appli- cants there was not enough evidence to quash their
convictions days before a month-long trial which would almost certainly reveal valuable information directly or indirectly
relevant to their cases."
p333 (Hardback again)
“But it was Patrick Green’s final question which sent a chill down my spine. He wanted to know about Ms Dickinson’s
experience of tracking down and seizing Postmasters’ assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act. POCA confis- cation orders
can only be made if a Subpostmaster has been convicted. Green wondered if suspended Subpostmaster cases were
sometimes referred to Ms
Dickinson’s team ‘so that POCA could be used to trace the assets?’
“In some cases,’ replied Ms Dickinson, ‘yes.’
There were two ways of reading the above exchange. The more obvious
(and I admit in retrospect, likely) meaning is that when the Post Office want- ed to trace Subpostmaster assets through
POCA, the cases were referred to Ms Dickinson. At the time I understood Ms Dickinson to be admitting that the Post
Office might try to prosecute suspended Postmasters so the Post Office could use POCA to go after their assets.3 Either
way, I was alarmed enough to put aside my squeamishness about getting involved in the story.
That evening I wrote to the Criminal Cases Review Commission suggest- ing it was clearly bonkers (I paraphrase) to be
making any decisions about the Subpostmaster cases they were reviewing without taking into account the abundance of
evidence now pouring out of Bates v Post Office.
Vaguely remembering James Arbuthnot had a hand in making sure the CCRC took any Subpostmaster applicants seriously,
I forwarded the now-en- nobled politician my email. I am still sufficiently deferential to never dream of suggesting a course
of action to a peer of the realm — but I very much hoped he would do something. Ninety-five minutes later, I was cc’d in an
email to the CCRC from The Right Honourable Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom which suggested that if the CCRC didn’t take
JARB0000124
JARBO000124
into account what was happening in Bates v Post Office, it might very well open its decision-making process to judicial
review.
Exactly a week later, the CCRC wrote to all its Subpostmaster applicants, telling them that, before progressing their cases,
the commissioners were go- ing to discuss waiting for the outcome of the Common Issues trial before making any decisions.
Good.”
PMI
CCRC
Criminal e Cases + Reviews Commission
Private and Confidential
Your ref:
Our ref: 00357/2015
28 November 2018
Dear Mrs Hamilton,
Re: Your application to the CCRC
_ I am writing to provide an update on the CCRC’s review of the Post Office
Horizon cases.
In my last update I explained that, apart from a small number of points of
Clarification, the investigation phase of the CCRC’s review was complete. I
added that the CCRC had entered the decision making phase of the cases,
which meant that we had begun briefing the Commissioners who will decide
whether any of the Post Office cases will be referred to the Court of Appeal.
The current position is that the Commissioners are being comprehensively
iefed on the results of the CCRC’s enquiries to date. The Commissio! ers are
__ due to meet in December to discuss the cases. Akey point forthe
Commissioners to decide in the first instance, will be whether or not the I core
JARB0000124
JARB0000124
JARB0000124
JARBO000124