POL00023223
POL00023223
Message
From: Andrew Parson:
Sent: 15/04/2019 08:
To: Rodric Williams C
cc: Gavin Matthews I 3 Amy Prime
Subject: BAQC Advice [WBDUK-AC.FID26610170]
Attachments: ADVICE ON THE COMMON ISSUES TRIAL JUDGMENT.pdf
Rodric
Please find attached BAQC's advice on the impact of the CIT Judgment on prosecutions. I've pasted below BAQC's
conclusions. Perhaps we can discuss, once you're back from hois and had a chance to review?
My thoughts are:
« Does point 2 below need to be fed into the governance around the recusai appeal process? it iends
some weight to pushing ahead with the recusal appeal.
e On point 3, does Post Office need to set up a process for CK to be reviewing the HIT?
Kind regards
Andy
1. The judge’s factual findings about disputed Branch Trading Statements do not in my view impact on the
safety of past convictions, because (1) they are based on his application and interpretation of the law of
contract to the contracts that exist between POL and SPMs; (2) the judgment and his factual findings are not
binding on the Court of Appeal Criminal Division or even persuasive authority, and so they do not impact on
criminal matters, as the judge observed himself; (3) each past conviction was founded on facts specific to
that case, and in any future appeal or reference made by the CCRC the safety test will have to be applied
according to issues, and the evidence heard in, each case and any fresh evidence the Court of Appeal permits
to be adduced before it.
2. The critical observations the judge made in the course of the Common Issues judgment suggesting that POL
has a culture of secrecy and regarding its approach to documents do risk provoking SPMs, the CCRC and the
public to believe that POL will have adopted such a culture towards its duties of disclosure during the
prosecution process and possibly to the review process begun in 2013. However, those criticisms are not
grounds on which any individual can launch an appeal and they are not very likely to move the CCRC to
make a reference on that basis alone, but they risk moulding, if not changing, attitudes towards POL.
3. Ido advise that POL investigates the issue set out in paragraphs 84-88 above with Cartwright King to see if
PEAK PC0211833 was notified to the prosecution in August 2011, what, if any, cases were affected; if they
were, how they were managed, and what the outcomes were.
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Manage your e-alert preferences
POL-0019702
POL00023223
POL00023223
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND .
DICKINSON
From: Brian Altman
Sent: 14 April 2019
To: Amy Prime}
Cc: Andrew Parsot
Subject: Re: Post Office [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Dear Amy,
Iam attaching my Advice.
If any further questions arise from it, please don't hesitate to get in touch.
Kind regards,
Brian
Brian Altman QC
Chambers of William Clegg QC
2 Bedford Row
London WC1R 4BU
sy Please consider the environment before printing this email
POL-0019702