POL00063281
POL00063281
Message
From:
on behalf of
Sent:
To:
cc:
Belinda Crowe
andrew.parson:
Subject: Re: LATEST DOSSIER
martin.smith;
Hi
More from me:
After para 17 we should say: Post Office is however writing to MPs who raised specific cases
offering to meet with them to discuss those cases, subject to the individual concerned giving
their consent.
This para: suggest delete the ref to SS - seems unnecessary (i have put brackets around it)
(Leaving aside the fact that Second Sight are engaged to provide impartial advice to the
Working Group and have neither the mandate nor expertise to make such an assessment)
such a suggestion does a huge disservice to the thousands of hardworking and diligent people
working as Subpostmasters. To paint these people, who operate perfectly successfully within
the terms of the contract offering vital services within the Communities they serve, as being
economically or legally ‘illiterate’ is of highly questionable judgment."
I can't see any reference to the allegation that we hold interviews under caution out of line
with PACE?
M
Mark Davies
Communicati
Mobile} _
rporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Jan 2015, at 07:26, "Patrick Bourke" i wrote:
Rod
Many thanks - good changes and yes, of course, let's discuss the couple of issues you've identified.
Subject to what Cartright King may say, I think this will be the final version (with these changes
accepted}.
POL-0059760
POL00063281
POL00063281
ALL: I will circulate a final version at about 0930 for any final comments with a very short turn time
around indeed so that we send it to BIS for official/Minister discussion.
Best wishes
Patrick
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 10:41 PM
To: Patrick Bourke; Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Mark R Davies
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; ‘andrew.parsons..
<andrew. parsons, G ‘martin.smith:
Thanks Patrick ~ it’s looking good.
fattach my mark up. There are a couple of bits we may want to discuss, and I want the criminal lawyers
to sign off a couple of others - ’ll chase this down tomorrow so we have a final report ready to go to
morrow as directed,
Kind regards, Rod
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
IV 9HQ
Post Office stories
a ei
@postofficenews
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 12 January 2015 15:30
To: Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Mark R Di
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; ‘andrew.parsonsi
‘martin.smith
Subject: LATEST DOSSIER
New edition of the dossier with all changes previously suggested incorporated.
Rod: over to you.
Kind regards
Patrick
POL-0059760
POL00063281
POL00063281
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 12 January 2015 13:39
To: Melanie Corfield; Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Mark R De
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Angela Van-Den- Bogerd, ‘andrew.parsons: _
‘martin.smith;
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Some very minor suggestions from me tracked onto Mel’s version
Tom Wechsler
From: Melanie Corfield
Sent: 12 January 2015 10:19
To: Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; ‘andrew.parsons
‘martin.smith
Subject: RE: Thé “dossier”
Hello Patrick
Atracked change re some wording previously agreed with Rod about describing Horizon “flaws” - plus a
couple of other less significant changes.
Mel
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 12 January 2015 09:30
To: Rodric Williams; Tom ie Comet; Mark R Davies
Importance: High
Good morning
As promised ~ here is a clean and tracked version of where we have now to. A question for Red on
limitation highlighted but all and another comments gratefully received.
Best wishes
Patrick
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 11 January 2015 22:07
To: Rodric Williams; Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies a
Cc: Belinda ; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; ‘andrew.parsons
Rod, Angela
Many thanks for your contributions - I'll amend the document up accordingly where necessary as soon
as I get in in the morning.
POL-0059760
POL00063281
POL00063281
Good night !
Patrick
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 09:22 PM
To: Patrick Bourke; Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Patrick — here are my proposed responses on the CPS and Limitation points:
cps
17 Dec 2014 : Column 527WH, Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con): “Is it a matter of concern to my
right hon. Friend, as it is to me, that all the Post Office prosecutions have been conducted in-house? The
Crown Prosecution Service has not been consulted, and therefore there has been no element of
independent scrutiny prior to the prosecutions’ commencement.”
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): “Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Post
Office is able to bring criminal prosecutions in cases that have already gone to the Crown Prosecution
Service, even if the CPS believes that there are insufficient grounds for a prosecution?”
Mr Arbuthnot: “As my hon. Friend suggests, and as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) suggested earlier, it is becoming increasingly untenable
for the Post Office to act as its own prosecutor without the independent look that the Crown
Prosecution Service would bring. My impression is that the Post Office shares that view, and the
sooner it can get rid of its responsibility to prosecute—I believe it should happen today—the better.”
[Introductory statement about how much (public) cash we have in the network to provide the
justification for prosecuting?]
When confronted by criminal conduct within its network, Post Office can exercise the statutory right to
bring a private prosecution open to all persons in England and Wales under the Prosecution of Offences
Act 1985, or by supplying evidence to the national prosecutors in Scotland and Northern Ireland (where
a private prosecution cannot be brought).
In deciding whether a case is suitable for prosecution, Post Office considers (among other factors)
whether it meets the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. That Code is issued by the
Director of Public Prosecutions and followed by Crown Prosecutors. Post Office does not have to inform
the CPS that a private prosecution has commenced, but the CPS can take over a private prosecution if
circumstances warrant. Like the CPS, Post Office keeps cases under continuous review all the way up to
and during any trial, and can effectively stop a prosecution by “offering no evidence” where
appropriate.
When Post Office decides to prosecute a case, its conduct of the prosecution is scrutinised by defence
lawyers and ultimately by the Courts themselves.
Statute of Limi
POL-0059760
POL00063281
POL00063281
17 Dec 2014 : Column 532WH, Mr Arbuthnot: “..... / hope the Government can prevent the Post Office
from pleading the statute of limitations, because sub-postmasters’ legal actions—some of them
caused by the behaviour of the Post Office—should not be barred by the passage of time.”
Limitation periods for bringing legal actions are a long and firmly established part of the law. The
periods, currently established by the Limitation Act 1980, balance the interests of the claimant (who
may need time to bring a claim) and the defendant (who must be protected from stale claims, e.g.
because relevant materials are no longer available).
The limitation defence is available to all defendants, no matter how strong the claim they are asked to
answer. Post Office, uniquely among defendants, should not be prevented from exercising this legal
right.
The Scheme does not affect postmasters’ legal rights, including the right to start Court proceedings if
they believe their case has merit. Many of the complaints in the Scheme are very old, with the typical 6
year limitation period expiring well before the Scheme was established. Many postmasters received
advice on their complaints before the limitation period expired, and Post Office has paid for postmasters
in the Scheme to receive support from professional advisors who can help with any limitation issues.
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
a 148 Old Street, LONDON, ECV 9HQ
E i GRO {Postline
Post Office stories
@postofficenews
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 09 January 2015 12:09
To: Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Tom
We spoke.
Some of Mark's questions fall into the technical and I'd very much welcome Rod’s advice on another
two, as below:
For techhie:
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->JA suggestion that at the end of the day, accounts were
sometimes over, and sometimes under, and changing balances between a Sat and a Monday
POL-0059760
POL00063281
POL00063281
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->JA suggestion about discrepancies doubling following helpline
advice
- <!+-[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Calls to helpline abandoned (10s of thousand)
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->25% cut to support staff
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Horizon was ‘second hand’ and designed for other purposes
For Rod please:
- <!I--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->The specific Bridgen accusation that we bring criminal cases
even when CPS has advised against
- _ <!-+if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->Statute of limitations
I think there is something of a limit to the number of accusations we can expect the dossier to cover, not
in the sense that there are so many (although there are), but some just don’t really lend themselves to
an easy answer: for instance, it seems highly improbable that a discrepancy would double as the direct
result of a call to the Helpline —- what would have doubled it, presumably, were the actions taken by the
relevant SPM following the call but this then becomes case-specific and off bounds.
Most of the others will simply involve adding to your draft which, as we noted yesterday, is already in
good shape.
Speak later
Patrick
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 08 January 2015 16:26
To: Mark R Davies
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons,
Andrew
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Thanks Mark ~ really helpful.
Some of it is covered (eg the substance of Rudkin if not as a named case) but your suggestions are
probably a level of detail below that I originally pitched at. Now we have the shorter version, i think a
more detailed rebuttal probably is the way to go. A fair amount of this is in Second Sight’s questions so
we'll get on to it.
Ce others for info and the potential need for help
Tom
Tom Wechsler
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 08 January 2015 16:10
To: Tom Wechsler
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Hi Tom
POL-0059760
POL00063281
POL00063281
This looks very good.
Apologies if I have missed these points as I have read through but if they are not there could we directly
respond to the following as well:
- <!I--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->The Rudkin case
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->JA suggestion that at the end of the day, accounts were
sometimes over, and sometimes under, and changing balances between a Sat and a Monday
- <!I--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->JA suggestion about discrepancies doubling following helpline
advice
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->The specific Bridgen accusation that we bring criminal cases
even when CPS has advised against
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Have we covered off sufficiently the JA suggestion that we
have broken ‘agreement’ with MPs re range of the scheme?
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->-‘set out to sabotage’ — I think we need to specifically rebut
this
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Lost or destroyed documents
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Calls to helpline abandoned (10s of thousand)
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->25% cut to support staff
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Put it in an envelope
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Statute of limitations
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Horizon was ‘second hand’ and designed for other purposes
Mark Davies I Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
et, London, ECLV 9HQ
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 08 January 2015 15:33
To: Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Mark R Davies; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew; Jarnail
Singh; Jane Hill
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfield; Chris Aujard; Georgia Barker; Jessica Barker
Subject: The "dossier"
All
With thanks to Belinda and Mel for their input so far, please find a first draft dossier attached. This
would be for the us to offer to the Minister to place in Parliament and for us to use with MPs etc /
publicly.
POL-0059760
POL00063281
POL00063281
Please note: As colleagues are still commenting on the “short version” there will need to be a
reconciliation of the two documents mostly for style / language rather than substance.
All comments welcome.
Thanks
Tom
POL-0059760