POLO0076592
POL00076592
Message
From: Tom Wechsler
Sent: 17/12/2014 01:
To: Belinda Crowe [_ Mark R Davies
atrick Bourke
i; Jarnail Singh Parsons, Andrew [/O=BOND
PEARCE/O rst Administrative Group/cn=Recipients/cn=ap6]
ce: Gavin Lambert { ; Melanie Corfield [f- a]
Subject: Re: Jo's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
The Greg Knight letter has gone on M001 (Castleton).
The Karen Lumley letter is with Tony to clear.
Tom
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 12: 20 AM
H Bourke; Chris Aujard; Jarnail Singh; Andrew Parsons
; Mel owe; Tom Wechsler
Subject: Re: Jo's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
Some thoughts from me to inform the lines Patrick is putting together.
The angle appears to be coming together as miscarriage of justice.
Added Jarnail to the copy list, as there are criminal law matters, for expediency. But we should push back hard on many
of these. We have set up just what we were asked to set up by way of the Scheme and despite the fact that the Scheme
has not yet concluded and cases have just started to go through mediation we are already being put under pressure to
do something different.
I have not heard back from Tony about his letter.
Patrick, are you happy with what you have so far and we can pick up first thing.
Chris I think you have been in contact with the CCRB recently.
Also when we go back to Richard we should let him know that over the pas couple of days Tony has written to a number
of applicants (including JA's case) explaining that they have been considered by the WG and are awaiting further info
etc.
Also any other MP letters which have cleared over the past couple of days. Tom could you confirm please?
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, ECV 2HQ
POL-0073155
POLO0076592
POL00076592
On 16 Dec 2014, at 21:29, Mark R Davies
Also agreed
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Mobil j
Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Dec 2014, at 21:08, "Patrick Bourk wrote:
Yes. Needless to say some of the 'asks' cannot be seriously entertained, surely ?
P
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 09:01 PM
To: Chris Aujard; Mark R Davies; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Gavin Lambert
Subject: Fw: Jo's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
To see below.
Chris, there are some lines on this that we need view.
Patrick, would you be able to put some lines together on what is below.
{ agree with Richard that being conciliatory got us to where we are now so she should
not be.
Best wishes
Belinda
From: Callard Richard (ShEx)
Sent: Tuesday, Dece
To: Swinson MPST
Cc: McInnes Tim (ShEx)
Baugh James (ShEx)
Belinda Crowe; Patrick Bourke
Subject: RE: Jo's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
Alysa (cc Belinda and Patrick for expediency)
Not surprising re decision not to share the speech. Trying to answer each point in turn:
1. We have a line on that - AND WE COULD BE VERY ACCOMMODATING, WHY WOULD
WE DESTROY DOCUMENTS
2. An independent review of an independent review is a bit odd. Particularly given Tony
Hoopers very independent stance. Who would do it? WE CANNOT AGREE TO AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF A SCHEME OVERSEEN WITH A WG WITH AN INDEPENDENT
CHAIR - THIS WOULD AMKE TONY'S POSITION UNTENABLE, SURELY
3. We have a line for that. WE COULD STRESS THAT THERE IS NO TIME BAR TO
APPLICATIONS TO THE SCHEME OR US MEDIATING THEM
4. SS probably need permission from the working group. They have gone native but I
think Jo could possibly commit to asking Tony about it at the risk of putting tony ina
POL-0073155
difficult place. Belinda / Patrick, could we have a view and a line please? THE LINE HAS
TO BE NO. A NUMBER OF PRACTICAL REASONS - GONE NATIVE, POL IS PAYING, NEED
TO LEAVE THE SCHEME TO RUN ITS COURSE. BUT IT PUTS TONY IN AN INVIDIOUS
POSITION, SS ARE ADVISORS TOTHE WG. CANNOT HAVE THEM BRIEFING ON THE
SCHEME
5. Pass, over to POL. I know they are, or were, a prosecuting authority but if there has
been theft or fraud and its in the public interest they have no real choice. Otherwise
what is the deterrent? Anyone could put theft down to 'the system’. Belinda, could you
do a line please? NEED A VIEW FROM CHRIS. HOWEVER, ASSUMING THE ASK IS THAT
POL SHOULD NOT PROSECUTE ITS OWN CASES (NOT JUST THESE CASES AS IT HAS
ALREADY DONE SO) THIS IS AN OPERATIONAL ISSUE FOR POL BUT IN ANY EVENT
COULD NOT JUST COMMIT TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS WITHOUT WITHOUT PROPER
CONSIDERATION.
6. We will think of a line. But presumably if they win the case they would get costs back.
Why should spms be any different to other people? Belinda /Patrick, any
views? CHRIS/RODRIC/JARNAIL NEED TO RESPOND TO THIS
7. Pass, and interested in POLs view. At the risk of creating another independent review,
I suppose we could consider it if it meant looking at all the evidence available (at least
the failings of the spms could come to light and it could offer the potential to draw a line
under the cases). Belinda / Patrick, again, a line and a view please. Presumably the
commissioner could find there is nothing to investigate, but this could risk generating
another story in its own right so if we did agree we'd have to be clear that this was to
draw a line and not because we thought something was worth reviewing. On balance I
think we should probably say no but open minded. NEED A VIEW FROM CHRIS/JARNAIL
BUT NORMALLY A CASE IS REFERRED TO TO THE COMMISSION AFTER AN
APPEAL. BUT REALLY SHOULD SAY NO.
Belinda / Patrick - I'll be in from half we've tomorrow (or just after). I am busy from 10-1
and cant escape so would be great to get this sorted before ten if we can.
Alysa - some of these requests are rather unreasonable eg point 5. Jo might have to be a
bit more "front footie" on those to close it down. Being conciliatory got us to where we
are currently, so am keen not to repeat past mistakes.
R
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Swinson MPST
Sent: 16/12/2014 19:56
To: Callard Richard (ShEx!
Subject: Jo's conversations with James Arbuthnot- actions coming out
Hi Richard,
So James no longer plans to share his speech with us ahead of time as apparently it is
very inflammatory and he is worried about putting in an email (this bodes well for
tomorrow...)
Him and Jo had a quick catch up in which he outlined his main “asks”. I understand
you’ve got a packed day tomorrow but grateful if you could ask POL about some of
these as Jo will need to respond in her speech and would be good to know how warm
she should be to these asks.
POLO0076592
POL00076592
POL-0073155
POLO0076592
POL00076592
1. He would like us to ask POL not destroy any documents relating to these cases
in the scheme. This for me raises the question of, are they destroying
documents now? How reasonable do you think this ask is?
2. He would also like there to be an Independent Review of the Scheme. This one
seems as bit less likely as it’s already an independent working group.
3. He would like there to be no statute of limitations on the claims being made
through the scheme. Is this one feasible?
4, He’d like Second Sight to do a briefing for MPs on the scheme and its progress.
Jo would like to commit to asking Tony Hooper about this. What do you think?
5. He would like us to ask POL to stop acting as prosecutor on these cases. It’s
unclear to me who would then prosecute instead or why POL currently do it the
way they do but Jo said she’d previously discussed this with Paula and she had
been open to this.
6. We need to get some lines of what to say in response to the claim that SPM
can’t appeal court verdicts because of the cost
7. James would like the Criminal Cases Review Commissioner to set up an
independent review of the cases relating to Horizons as well. Jo would like to be
able to commit to writing to the Commissioner and asking him to do this, what
do you think?
Thanks,
Alysa
Alysa Remtulla I Private Secretary to the Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer
Affairs I Department for Business, Innovation & Skills I 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET I
Work: I mpst.swinson?” i I www.bis.gov.uk
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes
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 9HQ.
JOH IOUT SOI OO IO IOI SSO IIIT III IOI AI IAI IOI AIA
POL-0073155