POL00063284
POL00063284
Message
From: Belinda Crowe [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BELINDA+20CROWE79E
S69F-4526-A078-F5B4958A8917220@C72A47.ingest.local]
on Belinda Crowe <IMCEAEX-
behalf _O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BELINDA+20CROWE79E
of S69F-4526-A078-FSB4958A8917220@C72A47.ingest.local> [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BELINDA+20CROWE79E
569F-4526-A078-F5B4958A8917220@C72A47 ingest.local]
Sent: 13/01/2015 09:38:56
To: Mark R Davies [mark.r.davies@
cc: Rodric Williams [rodric.williams@
[melanie.corfield
bogerd@
Subject:RE: LATEST E
; Patrick Bourke [patrick.bourke@,
; Tom Wechsler [tom, wechsler@f
[christopher. aujard@ .
3; martin.smith@ GRO
]; Melanie Corfield
in-Den-Bogerd [angela.van-den-
andrew.parsons@
These are the lines in the responses to the One Show re pace.
I understand from Mel that these took account of comments from legal
Interviews under caution, with investigators, are always carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice
of PACE, which means that interviews are recorded on tape and people can seek legal advice and have their
legal representatives present. These interviews are in connection with suspected criminal conduct. Before
these interviews, a person is always reminded of their right to have legal representation present and signs
confirmation of the position.
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 13 January 2015 09:08
To: Patrick Bourke
Cc: Rodric Williams; Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Chris Aujards Belinda Crowe; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd;
andrew.parsons@:_ ; martin.smith@ _
Subject: Re: LATEST BOSSIER
We have lines for the one Show and Inside out so should use those?
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Mobile
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Jan 2015, at 08:57, "Patrick Bourke" <patrick.bourkeé
POL-0059763
POL00063284
POL00063284
Rod
Could you or CK please provide the words in relation to PACE interviews relatively urgently I fear ?
Cheers
Patrick
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 08:26 AM
To: Patrick Bourke
Cc: Rodric Williams; Tom We
martin.smith@¢
Subject: Re: LA’
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
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Jan 2015, at 07:26, "Patrick Bourke" <patrick.bourke@ = GRO > wrote:
Rod
POL-0059763
POL00063284
POL00063284
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).
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. arsons@
GRO
Thanks Patrick - it's looking good.
{attach 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 - I'll chase this down tomorrow so we
have a final report ready to go to morrow as directed.
Kind regards, Rod
Rodric Williams [ Litigation Lawyer
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 12 January 2015 15:30
To: Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Mark R Davies
Cc: Belinda Crow Bogerd; 'andrew.parsons@!
‘martin.smith@ GRO
Subject: LATEST DOSSIER"
New edition of the dossier with all changes previously suggested incorporated.
Rod: over to you.
POL-0059763
POL00063284
POL00063284
Kind regards
Patrick
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 12 January 2015 13:39
To: Melanie Corfield; Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams; Mark R Davies
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;
‘martin.smithG@
Subject: RE: The
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 Wechsler; Mark R Davies
Cc: Belinda Crow i ngela Van-Den-Boger:
‘andrew. parsons@ martin.smith@”
Subject: RE: The 7
Importance: High
Good morning
As promised - here is a clean and tracked version of where we have now to. A question
for Rod 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
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfiel
‘andrew. parsons@E~
Subject: Re: The "dossier’
POL-0059763
POL00063284
POL00063284
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.
Good night !
Patrick
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 09:22 PM
To: Patrick Bourke; Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfield; Angela Van-Den-Boger
7 ‘martin.smith@¢
arsons, Andrew
7
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): "/s 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-! 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
POL-0059763
POL00063284
POL00063284
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 Limitations
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 [ Litigation Lawyer
Street, LONDON, ECLV 9HO
Postline:
rodric.williams
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,
POL-0059763
POL00063284
POL00063284
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:
- JAsuggestion that at the end of the day, accounts were sometimes over, and
sometimes under, and changing balances between a Sat and a Monday
- JAsuggestion about discrepancies doubling following helpline advice
- Calls to helpline abandoned (10s of thousand)
- 25% cut to support staff
- Horizon was 'second hand’ and designed for other purposes
For Rod please:
- The specific Bridgen accusation that we bring criminal cases even when CPS has.
advised against
- 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 reaily 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.
POL-0059763
Ce others for info and the potential need for help
Tom
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 08 January 2015 16:10
To: Tom Wechsler
Subject: RE: The "dossier"
Hi Tom
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:
- The Rudkin case
- JAsuggestion that at the end of the day, accounts were sometimes over, and
sometimes under, and changing balances between a Sat and a Monday
- JAsuggestion about discrepancies doubling following helpline advice
- The specific Bridgen accusation that we bring criminal cases even when CPS has
advised against
- Have we covered off sufficiently the JA suggestion that we have broken
‘agreement' with MPs re range of the scheme?
- -'set out to sabotage' - I think we need to specifically rebut this
- Lost or destroyed documents
- Calls to helpline abandoned (10s of thousand)
- 25% cut to support staff
- Put itin an envelope
- Statute of limitations
- Horizon was ‘second hand' and designed for other purposes
Mark Davies I Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
1* Floor, Banner Wing, 148 Old Street, London, ECIV 9HQ
Sent: 08 January 2015 15:33
POL00063284
POL00063284
POL-0059763
POL00063284
POL00063284
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.
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-0059763