POL00061548
POL00061548
Message
From: Chris Aujard [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=CHRISTOPHER+20AA04
80B7-40D2-ADE7-6F6FEAE19CC3F88@C72A47.ingest. local]
on Chris Aujard <IMCEAEX-
behalf _O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=CHRISTOPHER+20AA04
of 80B7-40D2-ADE7-6FEFEAE19CC3F88@C72A47.ingest.local> [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=CHRISTOPHER+20AA04
80B7-40D2-ADE7-6F6FEAE19CC3F88@C72A47.ingest.local]
Sent: 7/16/2014 9:23:51 PM
To: Rodric William:
ce: Belinda Crowe
Subject: Call with Brian Altman QC - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD.
Thanks Rob - much appreciated. Cheers Chris
Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Jul 2014, at 09:43 pm, "Rodric Williams" I
Chris - here’s a summary of our call with Brain Altman QC this evening. We were on the phone for
1hri5mins, so this is very high level.
1. <!--[if lsupportLists]--><!--[endif]-->BAQC identified the primary risk as:
a. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->POL communicating something new to the
Applicant;
b. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->which would have been relevant to the legal advice
s/he received on the prosecution;
c. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->such that the solicitor would not have advised the
Applicant to accept a Caution (providing grounds for JR), or plead guilty (providing
grounds for an appeal).
2. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->Assuming POL’s investigation has not identified anything to
call into question the safety of a conviction (or Caution), the options for mitigating this risk (from
lowest risk to highest) are:
a. <I--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->Do not accept any Criminal cases into the
Scheme. Obviously, this ship has sailed.
b. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->Refuse to do anything other than give a Criminal
case Applicant our report. BAQC acknowledged that this would be politically difficult.
c. <!--[if lsupportLists]--><!--[endif]-->If we have to do something, and cannot guarantee
we won't introduce something “new”, do not mediate.
d._ <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->This is because mediation’s format:
i. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->tests positions, with a view to softening
them;
ii. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->aims to achieve some form of “resolution”,
which is a compromise from the status quo;
iii, <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->both of which are facilitated by a third party
(the mediator), whose job is to extract concessions so as to achieve
compromise.
e. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->Instead, if we have to do something, have a tightly
controlled “face to face” meeting which explains where we are, but does not give
anything new or offer a “solution”.
POL-0058027
POL00061548
POL00061548
f. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->In the one case where we have a conviction after
trial (M012 - Misra), BAQC was very clear that we should not offer anything (i.e. not
even the face to face meeting).
3. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->BAQC acknowledged (and took comfort) that we would be
approaching each case on its own merits, and care should be taken not to commit POL to a
general course of action or approach. These principles would however help POL inform its
position on each individual case.
4. <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->BAQC thought Cartwright King’s structure for the face to
face meetings was a good start. He is happy to advise further on its structure, and provide a
written note of advice as required.
Happy to elaborate as required.
Kind regards, Rod and David
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
<image010,jpg>
<image003.png> 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png> rodric.williams@
<image007.gif> Post Office stories
<image008.gif> @postofficenews
<image009.png>
POL-0058027