POL00061549
POL00061549
Message
From: Rodric Williams!”
on behalf of — Rodric Williams ¢
Sent: 7/17/2014 2:31:
To: Claire Webb, GRO
Subject: FW: Call with Bi Altman QC - SUBJEt
Importance: Low
Just for info...
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 16 July 2014 21:44
To: Chris Aujard
Cc: Belinda Crowe; David Oliver1; Jarnail Singh
Subject: Call with Brian Altman QC - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT FORWARD
Importance: Low
Chris - here’s a summary of our call with Brain Altman QC this evening. We were on the phone for 1hr15mins, so this is
very high level.
1. BAQC identified the primary risk as:
a. POL communicating something new to the Applicant;
b. which would have been relevant to the legal advice s/he received on the prosecution;
c. 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. 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. Do not accept any Criminal cases into the Scheme. Obviously, this ship has sailed.
b. Refuse to do anything other than give a Criminal case Applicant our report. BAQC acknowledged that
this would be politically difficult.
c. If we have to do something, and cannot guarantee we won't introduce something “new”, do not
mediate.
d. This is because mediation’s format:
i. tests positions, with a view to softening them;
ii. aims to achieve some form of “resolution”, which is a compromise from the status quo;
iii. both of which are facilitated by a third party (the mediator), whose job is to extract concessions
so as to achieve compromise.
e. 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”.
f. 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. 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, 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.
POL-0058028
POL00061549
POL00061549
Kind regards, Rod and David
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
@
©
POL-0058028