POL00103846 - Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee meeting minutes for the meeting that occurred on the 4th February 2020
Evidence on official site
POL00103846
POL00103846
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee &
Board
Strictly Confidential and subject to legal privilege
MINUTES OF AN ADDITIONAL MEETING OF THE POSTMASTER LITIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF POST
OFFICE LIMITED HELD ON TUESDAY 04 FEBRUARY 2020 AT 20 FINSBURY STREET, LONDON EC2Y 9AQ AT
Present:
Tim Parker
Tom Cooper
In attendance:
Nick Read
Alisdair Cameron
Veronica Branton
Rodric Williams
Catherine Emanuel
Richard Watson
12.00 HRS
Chairman (TP)
Non-Executive Director (TC)
Group Chief Executive (NR)
Group Chief Financial Officer (AC)
Company Secretary (VB)
Head of Legal — Dispute Resolution & Brand (RW)
Herbert Smith Freehills (CE)
General Counsel — UKGI (RW)
Alan Watts Herbert Smith Freehills (AW)
Apologies:
Ken McCall Senior Independent Director (KM)
Agenda Item Action
1. Welcome and Conflicts of Interest
The Directors declared that they had no conflicts of interest in the matters to be considered
at the meeting in accordance with the requirements of section 177 of the Companies Act
2006 and the Company’s Articles of Association.
2. Appointment of QC
Alan Watts summarised the issues set out in the email circulated on 31 January 2020 and
the decisions sought. The Subcommittee had decided at its meeting on 22 January 2020
that a new QC should be appointed to advise on the disclosure review process for the
criminally convicted cases because Brian Altman QC had provided advice on an aspect of the
Group Litigation in 2013.
Appointing a new QC made it more difficult to progress work on the disclosure review
quickly because it would take them time to get up to speed with the facts of the case. To
avoid delay, Herbert Smith Freehills had consulted with Peters and Peters and the criminal
team to pull together a list of potential candidates. A number of QCs and two retired judges
had been considered but it was recognised that highly qualified QCs able to start straight
away were hard to find. Retired judges had built a reputation and would want to do more
than sign off another’s work but on the other hand would not get involved in the granular
detail.
The appointment of Sir David Calvert-Smith, a retired judge, was recommended. He had not
had any prior involvement with the convicted claimants’ cases or the Group Litigation.
In the meantime, the team were continuing to work through the issues but we wanted the
QC or retired judge appointed to approve the process.
A number of points were raised, including:
e The Subcommittee needed to be assured that they were getting the best advice and
there had been concern about being seen to “mark our own homework” because Brian
Page 1 of 3
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee
Board
4.
Strictly Confidential and subject to legal privilege
Altman had provided advice on the litigation in 2013. Brian Altman’s expertise and
independence were not in doubt but It was sensible, if only optically, that he should not
lead on the disclosure review
That we needed to check any potential conflicts of interest thoroughly before
appointing a new QC or retired judge to lead on the disclosure review
The Subcommittee needed a session to review the criminally convicted cases which
were likely to fall into different categories in terms of risk profile etc; we needed to
form a view on these cases, ideally in advance of cases being referred to the Court of
Appeal. It was reported that we were targeting the end of February 2020 for feedback
on the 34 cases we had identified for close review
Our view on what we should say on the right to appeal given the Judge’s comments on
the historic Horizon system was discussed. It was noted that we were in a potentially
Invidious position because where cases went to appeal we had been the prosecutor in
the first instance and would need to take a view on whether we should defend a
particular appeal case depending on its facts. We would need to consider this issue
further as we considered the individual cases and had advice on how to look at the
cases from a criminal lawyer. It was noted that Post Office Limited could not resolve
the criminally convicted cases, which had to go through the Court of Appeal. The Court
of Appeal might chose to distinguish between cases where claimants had pleaded guilty
and those who had not. Even on the lesser charge of false accounting a claimant would
need to show why they had pleaded guilty originally.
The Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee RESOLVED that:
As agreed at the Subcommittee meeting on 22 January 2020, Brian Altman QC should
not lead on the disclosure review cases; however, there was merit in retaining him for
advice, at least until the point at which it is decided which of the criminally convicted
cases were be referred to the Court of Appeal (after March 2020)
Tim Parker and Tom Cooper would speak with Sir David Calvert-Smith on 5 February
2020 before confirming his appointment
We should inform Freeths of our decision to appoint Sir David Calvert-Smith, once
confirmed.
The following actions were AGREED:
.
The Court of Appeal process should be set out, including likely costs and timelines
depending on the number of cases referred. The worst case scenario should be
included (e.g. we chose not to defend any of the cases appealed and we faced claims
for stigma as well as malicious prosecution)
We needed to understand our position in relation the wider group of potential
claimants so this should be set out
The meeting scheduled for 19" February 2020 would probably not go ahead because
we are unlikely to be in a position to review the criminally convicted cases at that point;
confirmation of this would be provided by 14" February 2020 and a date sought to run
through the cases.
Date of Next Meeting:
18 February 2020 (subject to confirmation).
Page 2 of 3
POL00103846
POL00103846
@
Legal team
Legal team
Rodric
Williams/
Veronica
Branton
POL00103846
POL00103846
Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee &
Board
Strictly Confidential and subject to legal privilege
Chairman Date
Page 3 of 3