POL00040517
POL00040517
Legally Privileged and Confidential
Further lines for Jo Swinson MP — Westminster Hall Debate, 17 December 2014
1. Destruction of Documents relating to cases in the Scheme
® ~POhas not, and will not, destroy any documents relating to the cases in the Scheme
«The implied suggestion that it might is unwarranted
© PO goes to great length to conduct extensive searches or all records when
investigation the cases in the Scheme
« Some cases are, however, extremely old and certain documents are no longer
available either to Applicants to the Scheme or to Post Office
® POhas operates a default 7 year retention policy, common to organisations
POL has previously destroyed documents relating to cases in the scheme before the birth of
the scheme due to its data retention policies.
Implied suggestion that this is unwarranted is incorrect. CK had to advice POL not to shred
/destroy documentation after such an instruction was given in the security team and
following publication of the interim 2" sight report. It is my understanding that following the
receipt of that advice POL withdrew that particular instruction. However it follows number
of people are nevertheless aware such an instruction was provided and it may be that some
of those people are no longer employees of POL. It may be better to simply point out that
data retention policies have been displaced, in relation to POLs investigation and
prosecution files.
2. Independent Review of the Independent Review
e The Government cannot and will not agree to some sort of Independent Review of a
Scheme operated privately and at arms-length from Government by PO
The Honourable Member will recall that he, along with PO, JFSA and Second Sight
took great care to establish a system which had inbuilt guarantees of independent,
notably through the Working Group and the appointment of Sir Anthony Hooper as
its Independent Chair
e Indeed, he himself has one more than one occasion, expressed his confidence in the
arrangements until very recently indeed
¢ Sir Anthony was appointed by POL but on JFSA’s own recommendation
e An Independent Review would be a costly, and in the Government's view,
unnecessary exercise likely to result in greater delays in the resolution of cases in
the Scheme, to the detriment of those with cases within it
e It would also make Sir Anthony’s position extremely difficult to say the very least
3. Waiving of Statute of Limitation by PO
¢ I absolutely cannot commit PO to anything such as this — that is properly entirely a
matter for PO
POL00040517
POL00040517
The Statute of Limitation protects all defendants against very old claims, for
instance where claims are old and cannot properly be investigated
I see no reason why PO should, uniquely, be deprived of its rights
I would remind the Honourable Member that no time limitation was placed by PO in
accepting cases into the Scheme
The clear implication being that it was, and is, prepared to mediate such cases where
there is genuine substance capable of being mediated
In any event, there has never been anything preventing a Subpostmaster from
bringing Court proceedings against PO before any applicable limitation deadline
4. Second Sight briefing MPs
5.
6.
Honourable Members must understand that Second Sight are engaged by POL
POL is paying all of Second Sight’s fees
Second Sight is an advisor to the Working Group and has no wider authority on the
Scheme
In any event, Second Sight is bound by the same obligations of confidentiality as are
all those participating in the Scheme
PO to divest itself of its right to mount private prosecutions
PO is not a prosecuting authority with special and/or particular rights and powers in
this area
Instead, like any organisation or person in the UK, it can mount private prosecutions
These must, and I believe do, comply with all the requirements of the Code for
Prosecutors
Chief among these are that there should be sufficient evidence to mount a
prosecution and that the prosecution itself ii in the public interest
As I say, these powers are not unique to Post Office but they represent an important
deterrent against to those who maybe contemplating fraud, theft or other crimes of
dishonesty against it
And they also represent an important tool in terms of legitimate revenue protection
and enforcement when, regrettably, people do commit crimes against it
There is simply no reason to remove these rights from the Post Office, again placing
it in a unique position as compared to all other organisations, and to its detriment
Since POL separated from RMG (1/04/12) Prosecution decisions have been made by external
lawyers .i.e solicitors and Barristers .This ensured POLs actions are considered
independently by qualified legal personnel’s.
POL has on-going duty of disclosure in respect of post convictions. Which it takes seriously.
Funding for Appeals
am glad that the Honourable Member recognises that the only forum in which
appeals against conviction can be made is through the Courts
POL00040517
POL00040517
Neither the Scheme, nor any mediations undertaken in relation to it, is a substitute
criminal appeals systems and nor could it ever be
The Honourable Member raises the issue of the costs involved in mounting an
appeal against a conviction
1am no expert, and I will make enquiries, but my understanding is that public legal
assistance is available for appeals in certain circumstances
However, I do not see any compelling reason for which Subpostmasters convicted of
acrime should be placed in any different position to people from other walks of life
who find themselves in identical circumstances
7.
POL00040517
POL00040517
Criminal Cases Review Commission
The Honourable Member has asked whether I would write to the CCRC in relation to
the cases in the Scheme in which there is a criminal conviction
He will, doubtless, be aware that the CCRC is principally concerned with matters
which arise (for instance material new evidence) which comes to light after an
Appeal has been made and been turned down by the Courts
As such, I think it unlikely that the CCRC would accept jurisdiction for these particular
cases at this juncture
I remind the Honourable Member that no such appeals have yet taken place but that
there is no bar whatever to any going forward
SPMS with cases in the Scheme will have the benefit of all the documentation which
results from the comprehensive investigations taking place to consider whether they
have any grounds for mounting an appeal
IN the circumstances, I must decline his request which I believe to be premature
He is, of course, perfectly able to raise this matter with the CCRC himself if he so
wishes