POL00022016
POL00022016
Message
From: Belinda Crowe [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BELINDA+20CROV
S69F-4526-A078-FSB4958A8917220@C72A47.ingest.local]
on behalf of Belinda Crowe <IIMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BELINDA+20CRO\
S69F-4526-A078-FSB4958A8917220@C72A47.ingest.local> [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BELINDA+20CRO\
S69F-4526-A078-F5B4958A8917220@C72A47.ingest.local]
Sent: 20/03/2014 08:31:01
To: Rodric Williams
cc: Belinda Crowe
Subject: Draft report
Attachments:Post Office Limited_Report_Legal AnalysisCCA commnets.docx
Sorry Rod, I should have sent the report with Chris’ comments.
Could we grab a word when you come in please — as well as answering the questions it would be good if you could have
a scan to see if there are any howling errors of fact.
Could you also look at what they have said in 4.13 and 5.47 about the fact that PO may make discretionary decisions not
to recover where it becomes known that there may be problem (e.g. a scam) until it has been investigated and, where
appropriate revised guidance has been issued. This was the point we discussed a couple of days ago and I suggested LL
discussed with you. I just want to check whether this accords with what you discussed with them.
A perhaps minor, but nevertheless important point I plan to raise with Christa is the comment in 5.33 about the working
relationship with JFSA and Post Office. I do not think it is that SS have a good working relationship with JFSA and not the
Post office, I think it is more the slant of their report in terms of acknowledging the input from JFSA rather than Post
Office and the paragraph cited, as written suggests that their work was aimed at addressing issued raised through JFSA
rather than the fundamental question about Horizon. Or put another way, JFSA fed in accusations and concerns about
which SS then challenged Post Office.
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
From: Chris Aujard
Sent: 20 March 2014 00:19
To: Swil, Jonathan 4
Cc: Band, Christa; David Oliver} Belinda Crowe
Subject: RE: Draft report
Hi Jonathan — my detailed comments are set out in the attached. Two big points, though:
POL-0018495
POL00022016
POL00022016
1) The intro section needs to be re-worked a bit to make it clear that this report focuses mainly on the legal liability
point, and that you will be working with us in relation to alternative structures (and may be not even producing
a report). The reason for this is that some board members think that the task of coming up with alternatives to
the scheme should be an internally driven bit of work, not something that is outsourced to a law firm.
2) The executive summary is still pretty long, and doesn’t hit the reader between the eyes with what I understand
to be your main conclusion — namely: Unless there is something wrong with the system, we are entitled to rely
on the accounts produced by Horizon as the basis of claiming sums of money from SPMRs. Further that there
can be no question of a claim for consequential losses based simply on the recovery by the Post Office of losses
if the losses were properly payable and the Post Office was entitled to the money.
These 2 statements together are quite powerful, and need to be brought our clearly, and it also needs to be said
that in consequence the amounts that could be successfully claimed in court are a fraction of the aggregate
amounts (c£100m) that has been claimed under the scheme.
I would be most grateful if you could turn this round asap in the morning.
Cheers
Chirs
From: Swil, Jonathan [mailto3
Sent: 19 March 2014 21:58
To: Chris Aujard a
Cc: Band, Christa; David Oliver
Subject: Draft report
Importance: High
Belinda Crowe
Chris
As discussed, I attach our draft report on the legal issues.
There is a factual question that we would like you to confirm in paragraph 5.22 (and a related question in 5.37), but
otherwise please provide any comments you may have in the time available and we will send through a finalised version
as soon as possible in the morning.
In the interests of time, I have left in the outline of “Part B” of the report in this document so that, as requested, you can
see where that part is headed. I will remove it (i.e. everything from section 6 onwards) in the final version for the Board
we send through tomorrow.
Kind regards
Jonathan Swil
Managing Associate (Solicitor, New South Wales)
Linklaters LLP, London
Any business communication, sent by or on behalf of Linklaters LLP or one of its affiliated firms or other
entities (together "Linklaters"), is confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected. If you receive it in
error please inform us and then delete it from your system. You should not copy it or disclose its contents to
anyone. Messages sent to and from Linklaters may be monitored to ensure compliance with internal policies
and to protect our business. Emails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free. Anyone who
POL-0018495
POL00022016
POL00022016
communicates with us by email is taken to accept these risks. Linklaters LLP is a limited liability partnership
registered in England and Wales with registered number OC326345. It is a law firm authorised and regulated by
the Solicitors Regulation Authority (www.sra.org.uk), The term partner in relation to Linklaters LLP is used to
refer to a member of Linklaters LLP or an employee or consultant of Linklaters LLP or any of its affiliated
firms or entities with equivalent standing and qualifications. Please refer to www.linklaters.com/regulation for
important information on our regulatory position. A list of Linklaters LLP members together with a list of those
non-members who are designated as partners and their professional qualifications, may be inspected at our
registered office, One Silk Street, London EC2Y 8HQ and such persons are either solicitors, registered foreign
lawyers or European lawyers.
POL-0018495