JARBO0000140
JARBO000140
Callanan, Minister (Private Office)!_
Sent: Wed 02/12/2020 5:
To: James Arbuthnot,
Ce: zz_Scully, Mini:
The Rt Hon The Lord Charles
Subject: RE: The Clarke Advice to the Post Office
Dear Lord Arbuthnot,
I am copying in Lord Callanan’s parliamentary email address so that he can respond to you directly.
With best wishes,
Mel
MR Melissa Craig
2h, Private Secretary to Lord Callanan
Department for Minister for Climate Change & Corporate Responsibility
Business, Energy “Ininister.calianan{ GRO} I melissa.craigd
& Industrial Strategy Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Si
www.gov.uk/beis I _https://twitter.com/beisgovuk
From: James Arbuthnot
Sent: 30 November 2020 12:16
To: Callanan, Minister (Private Office)
Cc: Scully, Minister (Private Office) ;
marion.fellows.mpé_.
Subject: Re: The Clarke Advice to the Post Office
Dear Mss Craig,
Again, thank you. Please will you pass to the minister the following response.
Of course your department does not hold the document in question. It is a document which the Post Office (which, I
remind you, your department owns) commissioned and received and which therefore the Post Office holds. Are you
suggesting that your department does not have a copy of the document? Really?
And do you have nothing to say about the issue of the Post Office (which, I remind you, your department owns) lying
to Parliament? I note that you do not deny it.
Yours sincerely,
James Arbuthnot
From: The Rt Hon the Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
The Rt Hon The Lord Charles Falconer QC ;
On 30 Nov 2020, at 11:26, Callanan, Minister (Private Office) ¢
Dear Lord Arbuthnot,
My sincere apologies for the delay — I passed on your second email to the policy team as soon as it was
received so that they had the full picture of your request. It took a little longer than anticipated as BEIS
does not hold the advice you reference. Lord Callanan has considered your request, please find his
response below:
Dear James,
BEIS does not hold the document you are asking for. I am told that the document in question has been
JARBO0000140
JARBO000140
disclosed by the Post Office to parties to ongoing legal proceedings that are before the Court of Appeal.
On 19% November 2020 the Court of Appeal noted that some of the content of the document was
already in the public domain and there was no current need for reporting restrictions. However, the
Court also said that it would keep the need for reporting restrictions under review if and when more of
the content of the document was referred to in Court. The Criminal Procedure Rules permit any member
of the public to apply to the Court for access to information about cases (Rule 5.8). As the document
relates to proceedings before the Court of Appeal, and given what that court have said about the
document, it is clearly not appropriate for anyone other than the court to decide whether the document
should be made public at this time.
Kind regards,
Martin
With best wishes,
Mel
Melissa Craig
Private Secretary to Lord Callanan
ister for Climate Change & Corporate Responsibility
. ~ . aig@.
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
www.gov.uk/beis I_https://twitter.com/beisgovuk
From: James Arbuthnot
Sent: 28 November 2020 13:10
To: Callanan, Minister (Private Office’
Cc: Scully, Minister (Private Office) <i __ GRO. Pp
Subject: FW: The Clarke Advice to the Post Office
Dear Martin
A week ago I wrote to you (amongst others, including Paul Scully and the CEO of the Post Office) to say
that the Post Office, which your department owns, funds and directs, lied to Parliament in its evidence
on 3rd February 2015. Please would you acknowledge receipt of that email? Please will you tell me what
you are doing about it?
And over a week ago I wrote to you asking you to place a copy of the Clarke advice in the libraries of
both Houses of Parliament. Ms Craig in your office said (see below) “Thank you for your email — I have
passed it on to the appropriate team in BEIS who are looking into this. We'll get back to you next week.”
You have not got back to me. Please would you do so?
Yours ever,
James
From:
ina@
Get Outlook for iOS
hickread1@
jot of Edrom
From: James Arbuthno'
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2020 4:45 pm
To: ARBUTHNOT OF EDROM, Lord
Subject: RE: The Clarke Advice to the Post Office
Dear Ms Craig,
Thank you for this. Further to my request yesterday that the Minister should place a copy of the advice
of Mr Clarke in the Library of both Houses, I have a further request, and you will note that as a result of
this request I am copying this email to the Speaker of the House of Commons, to the Lord Speaker and to
other interested parties.
On 3" February 2015 the BIS Select Committee took evidence in their inquiry into the Post Office
Mediation scheme. Part of that evidence was a written submission from the Post Office, although they
JARBO0000140
JARBO000140
also received oral evidence from amongst others the Chief Executive of the Post Office. Paragraph 11 of
that written evidence
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/business-
innovation-and-skills-committee/post-office-mediation/written/17827.pdf ) reads as follows:
“At the start of the Scheme, both Post Office and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance made clear that
mediation cannot overturn a conviction. This can only be done through established Court procedures.
Post Office is under an absolute duty to disclose any evidence that might undermine a prosecution case
or support the case of a defendant. It takes its responsibilities in this regard very seriously and Post
Office’s investigations have been carried out with this important duty firmly in mind. Post Office writes
to everyone who has suggested they have or have seen evidence that a conviction is unsafe and asked
them to disclose this so that it can be acted on. To date no such evidence has been provided.”
I suggest that the contemptibly late disclosure of the advice of Mr Clarke — something that should have
been in the public domain in 2013 — establishes that the Post Office lied to, and was in contempt of,
Parliament. The above quoted paragraph of the Post Office’s written advice was only one of many
instances of this. I should be grateful if you would consider my request for the immediate publication of
the advice in the light of this.
Yours sincerely,
James Arbuthnot
From: The Rt Hon the Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
jna GRO
From: Callanan, Minister (Private Office)! GRO
Sent: 20 November 2020 17:17 °
To: James Arbuthnot {~~
Subject: RE: The Clarke Advice:
Dear Lord Arbuthnot,
Thank you for your email — I have passed it on to the appropriate team in BEIS who are looking into this.
We'll get back to you next week.
With best wishes,
Mel
Melissa Craig
Department for Bu:
www.gov.uk/beis I_https://twitter.com/beisgovuk
From: James Arbuthnot
Sent: 20 November 2020 09:10
To: Callanan, Minister (Private Office) #"~
Subject: The Clarke Advice to the Post Off
Dear Martin,
On Wednesday 18 November the Court of Appeal considered a piece of advice written by a barrister,
Simon Clarke, in 2013 for the Post Office. According to Brian Altman QC, acting for the Post Office, this
advice - which was apparently to the effect that the evidence of Gareth Jenkins (a former senior Fujitsu
Horizon engineer) was wrong - was disclosed to Aria Grace solicitors (acting for three appellants) by
Peters and Peters solicitors (acting for the Post Office) last week. As you know, the judge in the Horizon
litigation referred Mr Jenkins’ evidence to the DPP.
In 2013 I and other MPs were in full flow of the discussion with Paula Vennells and Alice Perkins about
the unsafe nature of the Horizon convictions. We should have been told about this document, but I have
not yet seen it. Please will you immediately send me a copy, and place it in the library of both Houses?
Yours ever,
James
JARBO0000140
JARBO000140
From: The Rt Hon the Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in
error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or
copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any
damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not
encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.