POL00061369
POL00061369
Message
From: Jarnail Singh [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH
67E9-4ECA-94F2-005716658847;-
on Jarnail Singh <IMCEAEX-
behalf _O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH
of “+ [IIMICEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH
Sent:
To: 7] Rodric
hirley Hailstones
cc: Parmenter, Claire ¢ Leigh-Doyle, Alvai”
Subject:RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Andrew/ Angela
in my view the issues relate to the sensitivity of the information contained in the investigation officers report and data
protection act. Whilst it is open to POL to disclose appropriately redacted investigated report, I am concerned of the
danger which may arise if such reports are disclosed in some cases and not others. it is possible POL may be challenged
as to why it choice to disciose in some cases and not others.
lam less concerned with the fact that investigation report is not signed statement but more concerned with the
potential content of the report which may be potentially damaging to the POLS interest Accordingly I think more clarity
is required with regards to POLs policy on disclosure of such report.
We have been advised that a uniform and consist approach to each report would be best way forward rather then make
decisions on case by case basis.
POL has been advised by senior counsel and I agree with that advice. I would reiterate that the investigation report
generally sets out details of the evidence.
thope this helps.
Regards
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
From: Parsons, Andrew,
Sent: 22 April 2014 10:39
To: Jarnail Singh; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rodric Williams; Kathryn Alexander; Shirley Hailstones
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
POL-0057848
POL00061369
POL00061369
damail
The challenge with the usual prosecution approach is that statements and exhibits are verified by statements of truth
which are enforced under Court rules. We have no Court rules here to make such statements binding and therefore
information provided through this route is no more credible than writing the information in POL's investigation report. It
would therefore be useful in some circumstances to disclose the original source document (even if redacted) as the
originality of that document comes with inherent credibility.
Please can you confirm whether this approach (of releasing redacted documents} is possible or whether from a criminal
law perspective there is an inviolable principle that we cannot disclose such documents.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Sent: 22 April 2014 10:00
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; Kathryn Alexander; Shirley Hailstones
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Angela
The point is if the Officers report contain information that the defence should have prosecution usually we can
serve it in some other way — either by statement, documentary exhibit etc. We should this stance.
Regards.
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
i)
TV 9HQ
©
C Jammail.a.singh
a
®@
POL-0057848
POL00061369
POL00061369
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 22 April 2014 08:35
To: Jarnail Singh; Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; Kathryn Alexander; Shirley Hailstones
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Andy,
We do refer to the officer’s report in case M054 and in this instance using this report does in my view make for a more
conclusive case. Therefore my view is that this needs to be addressed on a case by case basis as you suggest but with a
presumption against disclosure unless absolutely necessary.
Kath, Shirley — please ensure that if you wish to use an investigation officer's report as a supporting document that you
flag this to BD when you send them the report so that they can advise accordingly.
Thanks,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
®
STV SHO
a
angela.van-den-bogerd!
Post Offic ries
©0S®o
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact me by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Sent: 17 April 2014 14:28
To: Parsons, Andrew; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rodric Williams
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Andy
In prosecution these documents are not disclosed to the defence as they are not the primary evidence rather
a prosecution working tool, If they contain information that the defence should have prosecution usually
serve it in some other way ~ either by statement, documentary exhibit etc.
You refer to the issue in MO51 Rudkin..You say report should be disclosed in redacted form. As it contain “a
paragraph in the report that is important in disproving the allegation that the Applicant's wife was
POL-0057848
POL00061369
POL00061369
inappropriately interviewed” . Here we would not relay on the officers report all the relevant information is
contained in Mrs Rudkin interview which would be part of the prosecution papers served on all parties .
Hope it heips..
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
oO
©
& Jamail.a.sing]
@® Post Office stories
@®
From: Parsons, Andre
Sent: 17 April 2014 12:
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rodric Williams
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Jarnail Singh; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Angela, Rod
CK have raised a concern about disclosing “Officer's Reports" with the POL Investigation Reports. The Officer's Reports
are prepared by the POL Investigation team at a very early stage of a prosecution and are intended to set out the facts
and background of a case in order that a decision to prosecute might be made. This is necessarily at a stage when the
investigation is far from complete and will often contain conjecture and opinion that will subsequently be proved wrong or
inflammatory. I also understand that the reports may also contain information about POL's processes or improvements to
those processes that would otherwise remain confidential.
This document is typically not disclosed through the prosecution process as it is part of the prosecution working papers
and therefore, I understand, it is usually exempt from disclosure (Jarnail — please shout if this is wrong).
I cannot see that this document would attract legal privilege as it is an investigation document and not a document
prepared for the purposes of litigation.
It is therefore a question of commercial sensitivity as to whether to disclose these documents. Do you have a view on
whether as a point of principle this type of document should or should not be disclosed? Alternatively, do you think this
needs to be addressed on case by case basis? My feeling is that we should adopt the latter approach but with a
presumption against disclosure unless absolutely necessary
The case that flagged this issue was M051 Rudkin. The report in question is attached. My view is that this report should
be disclosed in redacted form. There is one paragraph in the report that is important in disproving the allegation that the
Applicant's wife was inappropriately interviewed — see issue 6 in the attached draft version of the POL Investigation
Report. All other parts of the report should be redacted on the grounds that they are subject to prosecution privilege.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
POL-0057848
POL00061369
POL00061369
Fax:
Dr any Loss ox
JOH IASG SOHO HIG IO IOS ISI IO IS ODI III IOI I ODI AI IAAI III AI
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient,
you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in
error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V SHQ.
JOH ESO OO ISOS SOO ISIS SOO IDI IOI IIIB ISAT IOI AISA I IOS I AIA
POL-0057848