POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
Chair of the Working Group to the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Sir Anthony Hooper
Contents
4 Appointment process
Introduction to Sir Anthony
References
cv
Briefing to Independent Chair (including role definition)
Minutes of meeting with Paula Vennells, Alasdair Marnoch and Martin Edwards
NOOR ON
Hillsborough Issue
a. Summary
b. Extract from Sir Anthony's Ruling
c. Extract from Hillsborough Report
d. Media extracts
e. Note of call with Sir Anthony on 8 October 2013 [TO BE INSERTED]
Letter of appointment
External communications [TO BE INSERTED]
a. Agreed comms with JFSA
b. Reactive comms on Hillsborough issue
1 Appointment process
° Discussions were held internally at POL (with advice from Bond Dickinson) and with the Working
Group (Second Sight and the Justice for Subpostmaster Alliance) as to the qualities sought in a
Chair for the Working Group.
. The JFSA indicated a clear preference for a senior lawyer / retired judge as Chair — this type of
individual became the focus of the search.
° A short list of possible candidates was formed:
° Sir Anthony Hooper - recommended by Miss Kay Linnell, professional advisor to the
Justice for Subposmaster Alliance.
° Sir Stephen Sedley — recommended by Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP.
° Sir Alan Ward — recommended by Bond Dickinson LLP.
° The candidates (or their clerks) were approached to ascertain their interest in the role.
. Arole definition for the Chair was drawn up and sent to the potential candidates (see 5 below).
° For reasons of suitability, availability and cost, Sir Anthony was considered the leading
candidate.
4A_27544698_1 1
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
° Sir Anthony met with Paula Vennells, Alasdair Marnoch and Martin Edwards to discuss the Chair
position (minutes at 6 below).
° Second Sight and the JFSA subsequently also agreed to the appointment of Sir Anthony.
. A further investigation was conducted into a key issue around Sir Anthony's involvement in the
prosecution of two officers connected with the Hillsborough disaster (see 7 below)
. Bond Dickinson finalised discussions with Sir Anthony's clerks regarding his scope of work and
fees.
° Letter of appointment sent to Sir Anthony (at 8 below) and external communications sent out (at
9 below)
2 Introduction to Sir Anthony Hooper
Sir Anthony Hooper retired from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in September 2012.
He is the inaugural Judicial Fellow of the Judicial Institute of University College, London, where he is also
an honorary Professor.
Sir Anthony offers his services in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries to national
and international corporations and organizations (both civil and military). As a former Lord Justice of
Appeal he may act as an independent investigator, expert witness, mediator, arbitrator and monitor and
as an advisor on compliance programmes.
3 References
Positive feedback on appointing Sir Anthony to the role of Chair has been received from the following:
. Miss Kay Linnell - Miss Linnell is a qualified forensic accountant, arbitrator and mediator. She
sits on the board of the Expert Witness Institute, of which Sir Anthony is the Chairman.
. Brian Altman QC - Mr Altman QC is a former First Treasury Counsel and has been engaged by
Post Office to advise on POL's approach to criminal prosecutions.
° Sir Alan Ward — Sir Alan is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal and Chairman of the Civil Mediation
Council — a leading body on mediation in the UK.
48_27548608_1 2
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
The Right Honourable Sir Anthony Hooper
4 CV for Sir Anthony Hooper
Sir Anthony Hooper retired from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in
September 2012. He is the inaugural Judicial Fellow of the Judicial Institute of
University College, London, where he is also an honorary Professor.
Sir Anthony offers his services in the United Kingdom, the United States and other
countries to national and international corporations and organizations (both civil and
military). As a former Lord Justice of Appeal he may act as an independent
investigator, expert witness, mediator, arbitrator and monitor and as an advisor on
compliance programmes. He will lecture and lead discussion groups on issues of fraud,
bribery, confiscation, money laundering and related criminal and civil activity arising in
the United Kingdom and in other countries. He is currently a consultant to the Stolen
Assets Recovery Initiative, a joint programme of the World Bank and the United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime. He is helping in the planning and organisation of training
for East African judges on stolen asset recovery. He will lead the first course to be
given in January 2014.
Sir Anthony read law at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, of which he is now an Honorary
Fellow.
Academic
Trinity Hall, Cambridge (1957-1960, 1961-1962) (Scholar)
Called to the Bar of England and Wales, Inner Temple (1965)
Lecturer, University of Newcastle on Tyne (1962-65)
Associate Professor of Law, University of British Columbia (1965-68)
Admitted to Law Society of British Columbia (1969)
Associate Professor, Université de Laval (1969-70) (teaching in French)
Visiting Professor, Université de Montréal (1972-73) (teaching in French)
Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Ontario (1971-73)
Visiting Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Ontario (1984)
Practice
Russell and DuMoulin, Vancouver (1968-1969)
England & Wales (1974-1995)
Appointed Queen’s Counsel (1987)
During his 20 years practice, Sir Anthony appeared in both civil and criminal
court. He prosecuted and defended in a number of high-profile criminal trials,
appeared in the European Court of Justice (representing Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical Corporation in Case No. 53/83), as well as in the Cour d’Appel in
Paris. He combined practice at the English Bar with membership for a number
of years of the Brussels European law firm, Stanbrook & Hooper. He defended
in the Blue Arrow rights issue case in 1991-1992 and in 1988 he prosecuted the
serial murderer and rapist John Duffy. He appeared in 1987 for EMI in their
dispute with Warner Brothers, which unsuccessfully alleged that the composer
Vangelis had plagiarised the theme music for the film Chariots of Fire. He
appeared in 1995 for the Premier League in their successful defence of a civil
4A_27544698_1 3
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
claim brought by the Swiss Bank Corporation for payment of an alleged success
fee. He also successfully defended a senior accountant in a criminal case in
Singapore. Whilst at the bar, Sir Anthony chaired the Bar Council's Race
Relations Committee and was heavily involved in the production and
implementation of the first Bar Equality Code.
Judicial
Justice of the High Court of England & Wales (1995-2004) and Presiding Judge of
North Eastern Circuit (1996-2000)
Sir Anthony tried a number of high profile jury criminal cases including the first
Damilola Taylor trial in 2002. The acquittal of the defendants was subsequently
vindicated by DNA evidence. He conducted the trial in 2000 of two senior police
officers for the alleged manslaughter of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough
Stadium disaster. He sat in the Queen’s Bench Division, the Administrative
Court and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, as well as in the Court of Appeal
Criminal Division. He dealt with challenges to the decisions of lower courts, the
parole board, prison service, the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, governing
bodies of schools, the Local Commissioner for Administration, the Horse Race
Betting Levy Board, the Bishop of Stafford and the Video Appeals Committee.
His decision in The Queen on the application of Amin v. The Secretary of State
for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 719 was an early case dealing
with the Article 2 obligation on the state to conduct an enquiry into certain
deaths. His decision, having being overturned in the Court of Appeal, was
unanimously reinstated by the House of Lords [2004] 1 AC 653. Lord Bingham
said: “Hooper J. loyally applied those[minimum] standards. The Court of Appeal,
in my respectful opinion, did not”. In Saleem v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department Sir Anthony struck down one of the rules in the Asylum Appeals
(Procedure) Rules on the grounds that the primary legislation did not authorise
expressly or by necessary implication such a draconian rule (see [2000] EWCA
Civ 186, upholding the decision). In Masters v Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions [2000] 2 All ER 788, Sir Anthony gave
an important decision, upheld in the Court of Appeal ({2001] QB 151), protecting
public rights of way.
Lord Justice of Appeal and Privy Counsellor (2004-2012)
In the Court of Appeal Sir Anthony sat on both civil and criminal appeals,
deciding complex issues of law and fact. He also presided in the Divisional
Court. His particular areas of expertise include fraud, confiscation, money
laundering, public interest immunity, joint enterprise, asylum and immigration,
extradition, libel, employment law and all aspects of administrative law. Sitting in
the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, he was particularly involved in appeals
raising issues of joint enterprise and confiscation. Amongst the latter are
White (http://www. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/978.html) and Ahmad
[2012] 1 WLR 2335 (http:/www. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/201 2/391 html).
Civil decisions include The Queen on the application of Lofti Raissi v. SSHD
[2008] QB 836 (state liability for miscarriages of justice); Charman v. Orion
Group Publishing and others [2008] 1 All ER 750 paragraphs 92-229 (libel);
Brown v Pretot [2011] EWCA Civ 1421 (land law); Servaas Incorporated v
4A_27544698_1 4
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Rafidain Bank [2011] EWCA Civ 1256, paragraphs 40-61 (state immunity); R (on
the application of AC) v Berkshire West Primary Care Trust & Anor [2011]
EWCA Civ 247 (access to specific health care); Barbados Trust Company Ltd v
Bank of Zambia & Anor [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep 495, paragraphs 120-143 (a
“vulture fund” case); Bancoult, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for
Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2006] EWHC 1038 (Admin) (lawfulness of
order exiling inhabitants of the Chagos Islands), upheld in the Court of Appeal
and overturned in the House of Lords by 3-2, Lord Bingham dissenting. In
October 2012 he gave the lead judgment in a murder appeal heard by the Privy
Council.
Other
General Editor, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice (2010-)
Member and then deputy chair of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee (2005-2012)
Author of Chapter 31, The Golden Thread, in The Judicial House of Lords 1876-2009
published in 2009 by the Oxford University Press
President, British Academy of Forensic Sciences (2001-2003)
Chairman, Expert Witness Institute (2013-)
Chairman of the Whistleblowing Commission established by the charity Public Concern
at Work (2013)
Lectures
Sir Anthony has lectured widely in the United Kingdom and abroad. In Argentina
(2011), France (2009) and China (2005) he spoke about the criminal justice
systems in common law and civil law jurisdictions. In June 2012 he gave a
lecture in the Inner temple, London entitled “Half a Century of Crime: A
Valedictory Summing-up”. In November 2012 he was a lead speaker at a
criminal law reform conference in Hong Kong organized by the Director of Public
Prosecutions and gave a guest lecture to the Singapore Academy of Law. In
2013 Sir Anthony attended a study day in Paris organised by L’Institut des
hautes études sur la justice to discuss (in French) a draft report on the future
role of the French judiciary. In October 2013 Sir Anthony is speaking about bias
in arbitrators at a conference in Paris organised by Corporate Counsel
International Arbitration Group and the International Chamber of Commerce
Institute of World Business law.
4A_27544698_1 5
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
5 Briefing to Independent Chair (including role definition)
Post Office - Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Independent Chairman Briefing
Introduction
The Post Office is a commercial business with a public purpose. Our 11,780
branches sit at the heart of communities across the UK. It employs almost
8000 people and works closely with thousands more across our Network. The
Post Office is focused on growing as a business and modernising its network
complemented by a growing digital presence.
In collaboration with a number of interested parties, Post Office has
established a mediation scheme to assist in resolving complaints by its
subpostmasters regarding Post Office’s Horizon IT system.
The Scheme will be supervised by a Working Group comprising representatives
from those interest parties. The Working Group is now looking to appoint an
dependent Chairman.
Horizon
Horizon is the electronic point of sale IT system used in all Post Office
branches. It includes hardware being the counter-terminals in each branch as
well as the back-office servers and data centres. The Horizon software is a
bespoke program developed by Fujitsu for Post Office. Fujitsu continue to
support, upgrade and develop Horizon.
In essence, Horizon is an electronic accounting system. It tracks every
transaction made in a Post Office branch. It also logs the levels of cash
and stock held in each branch.
Its core principle is that of double entry bookkeeping. For example, if a
product is sold for cash this would in most cases result in a reduction in a
branch's stock levels of that particular product line and an increase in the
amount of cash recorded as held at the branch. It should however be noted
that the range of products sold by Post Office is very diverse. These
include financial products, insurances, banking facilities and a number of
Government services and benefits. These all sit alongside core postal
services. The transaction journey for a particular product is therefore
unique to that product.
Horizon also connects to a number of other systems, both internal to Post
Office and external. In particular, Horizon connects to a number of external
banking systems for the purposes of offering banking facilities to customers
Each branch is responsible for logging the transactions conducted within
that branch onto the Horizon system. It is also the branch's
responsibility to ensure that it collects the correct level and type of
payment for each product and properly provides the correct product to a
customer.
On a regular basis, and at least one a month, branch staff are required to
undertake a reconciliation of their Horizon records. This involves
undertaking a manual hand count of the cash and stock in the branch and
comparing the actual levels of cash and stock against the recorded levels
the Horizon system.
48_27548608_1 6
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
on occasions, there may be discrepancies between the actual cash and stock
levels and the recorded cash and stock levels. These discrepancies can be
either shortages or surpluses.
Subpostmasters
The majority of Post Office branches are run by subpostmasters.
Subpostmasters are individuals who are contracted to run Post Office
branches. They are individual contractors and not employees.
Under the standard subpostmaster's contract, a subpostmaster is liable for
any shortages in cash or stock in their branches. If a shortage is
discovered, the subpostmaster is required to either (1) physically place more
cash into the branch from their own funds or (2) settle the shortage
centrally with Post Office - which means that the shortage is added to the
subpostmaster's account with the Post Office and becomes a debt which the
subpostmaster owes to Post Office (unless the subpostmaster looks to dispute
the debt/shortage). Where there is a surplus, the subpostmaster is entitled
to keep the surplus.
In some cases, errors in branches can lead to losses. This can result ina
subpostmaster's contract being terminated and/or the subpostmaster being sued
through the civil courts to recover the outstanding loss.
Where Post Office discovers evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the
subpostmaster may be criminally prosecuted. Typical criminal prosecutions
are for either theft or false accounting (where a subpostmaster has declared
transactions or stock or cash levels within the branch which are not true).
Post Office sometimes refers these prosecutions to the police/criminal
prosecution service. However, in the vast majority of cases, Post Office
undertakes a private prosecution of the subpostmaster.
Challenges to the Horizon system
Over the last few years, there have been a growing number of accusations
from subpostmasters (and other Horizon users) that the Horizon system and
$ associated processes are unreliable. They allege that errors in the
Horizon system have falsely created losses that do not actually exist. Some
subpostmasters have gone further to allege that Post Office has wrongfully
recovered debts from subpostmasters or wrongly prosecuted subpostmasters
based on flawed information from the Horizon system. It should be noted that
the transaction records from the Horizon system often form the foundation of
any civil recovery or criminal prosecution.
This ultimately led to the formation of a group called the Justice for
Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA). A number of MPs, led by the Rt Hon James
Arbuthnot MP, also became interested in this matter. Post Office, as a
company which is beneficially owned by the UK Government, came under
increasing pressure to investigate and resolve JFSA's and other
subpostmasters' allegations about the Horizon system. In response, Post
Office set up an independent inquiry into the Horizon system.
The inquiry is a private inquiry (it is not established under any law or
action of Parliament) and was set up in June 2012. It is led by a company
called Second Sight Support Services Limited (who are independent forensic
accountants and fraud examiners). The Inquiry's scope was agreed with Second
Sight, JFSA and James Arbuthnot MP. Second Sight was tasked with
investigating whether there are any systemic issues and/or concerns with the
Horizon system, including its training and support processes.
48_27548608_1 7
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
Second Sight rendered its Interim Report on 8 July 2013. Its preliminary
conclusion was that it had so far found no evidence of system wide
(systemic) problems with the Horizon software. However it did highlight a
number of areas in relation to wider support and training around the Horizon
system that required further investigation and improvement.
The Scheme
In light of the Interim Report, and in collaboration with JFSA and Second
Sight, Post Office has committed to setting a mediation scheme where
individual subpostmasters have an opportunity to raise their concerns
directly with Post Office.
The Scheme is being supervised by a Working Group comprising of
representatives from Post Office, Second Sight and the JFSA. The Working
Group's role is to ensure the Scheme is run in a fair and efficient manner.
It will also be involved in making decisions on how particular cases should
be managed through the Scheme. To ensure its impartiality, the Working Group
is seeking to appoint an Independent Chairperson.
The starting point for the Scheme is for subpostmasters to submit details
of their case to Second Sight as part of an initial application process.
Second Sight, in collaboration with the Working Group, will recommend
whether the case should be investigated.
Second Sight will then work with each subpostmaster and Post Office to gather
information about and investigate that case. The subpostmaster will be sent a
Case Questionnaire setting out requests for more detailed information. Post
Office will also provide additional information from its own records.
As a result of this investigation, Second Sight will produce a Case Review
summarising its findings and a recommendation on whether the case is suitable
for mediation. A copy of this Case Review will be provided to the
subpostmaster. The Working Group will however take the final decision on any
cases that may not be suitable for mediation.
The Case Review should bring clarity to many cases. Post Office may contact
a Subpostmaster directly to discuss a Case Review and to seek closure of
any outstanding issues. If a solution cannot be reached directly between
Post Office and the Subpostmaster, both parties may then be invited to
attend mediation.
The mediation process will be administered by an independent mediation body
(which is likely to be CEDR) and the mediator will be selected by the parties
from a panel of mediators. The mediation administrator and the panel of
mediators will be nominated by the Working Group.
Scope of the Scheme
The Scheme applies to both current and former Subpostmasters as well as
counter clerks employed by Post Office. (A minority of Post Office branches
are owned directly by Post Office and the staff in those branches employed
by Post Office are known as counter clerks.)
The Scheme is open to any Subpostmaster who believes they have suffered a
loss or been treated unfairly as a result of the Horizon system or any
associated issues.
If a serving Subpostmaster wants to use the Scheme, he or she must have
already raised their case with Post Office and have completed all Post
ce's internal complaint processes.
48_27548608_1 8
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
It is difficult to know how many subpostmasters will take up the scheme.
However, JFSA has over 100 registered members and all these members will be
invited to take part.
The scheme will open on Tuesday 27 August 2013 and the closing date for
applications is 18 November 2013. Under its terms of reference the Working
Group will continue until 31 March 2014, when its role will be reviewed.
Role of the Working Group
° To establish and, where appropriate, revise the Scheme's operational
and working practices.
° To monitor the efficacy of the Scheme in achieving the Scheme
Objectives.
° To ensure that Subpostmasters' cases progress through the Scheme in a
timely manner.
° To review Subpostmasters' cases that may not be suitable for the Scheme
and to decide whether and/or how those cases may proceed. For clarity,
the Working Group shall have no authority to decide the suitability or
process for cases subject to live criminal investigations or
proceedings.
. To ensure, as far as possible, that the Scheme treats all cases
consistently.
° To manage the costs of the Scheme so to ensure that the Scheme is
offering value £
x money for taxpayers.
° To consider and determine any request by a Subpostmaster for special
financial support.
° To produce, and keep under review, a set of quantitative assurance
standards and targets.
° To maintain a record of the results of the Scheme.
° To make recommendations for improvement to Post Office.
Role of the Independent Chair
Purpose
To provide independent leadership, scrutiny and challenge to the Working
Group to ensure the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme achieves
the Scheme Objectives and offers value for money to tax payers.
Responsible to
The Post Office board of Directors
Main duties
. To ensure that the Working Group operates to its Terms of Reference
48_27548608_1 °
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
° To Chair all meetings the Working Group unless another person is
nominated by the Working Group
° To provide leadership to the Working Group to enhance its
effectiveness including:
- Ensuring that the responsibilities of the Working Group are
understood by all members
- Providing leadership to enable the Working Group to work as a
cohesive and productive group
- Demonstrating integrity and ethical leadership by encouraging
a climate of trust and openness
° To manage the Working Group including:
- Preparing the agenda for the meetings
- Adopting processes to enable the Working Group to conduct its
work effectively and efficiently including scheduling and
management of meetings, record keeping and reporting as
detailed in the Working Group Terms of Reference
° To ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, equality of access to
the Scheme for all by complainants irrespective of age, disability,
gender, race, religion or sexual orientation
ed
ty/Experience Req
° Significant experience of chairing complex professional meetings at a
senior level demonstrating an ability to summarise discussions in order
to clarify and highlight the most pertinent factors to achieve
resolution and clear decisions.
° Ability to chair in an efficient and effective manner in a manner that
facilitates collaboration between members and manages competing or
differing views.
° Excellent communication skills gained from working with a diverse
range of people across a multifaceted stakeholder population.
° Successful track record of achievement at Board level within large
public or independent organisation.
° Strategic thinker with outstanding analytical ability and the vision
to recognise improvement opportunities and make recommendations to the
POL Board
° Experience of Schemes of this nature and ideally of mediation or of
resolving any disputes and complaints between professionals
26 August 2013
48_27548608_1 10
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
6 Minutes of meeting with Paula Vennells, Alasdair Marnoch and Martin Edwards
Note of meeting with Sir Anthony Hooper (AH) on 24 September and next
steps
Attendees: Paula Vennells (PV), Alasdair Marnoch (AM), Martin Edwards (as note
taker)
Key points from the meeting:
1. PV and AM opened the meeting by explaining the background to the mediation
scheme and working group, highlighting that:
a.
the PO is fully committed to making a success of the process, both for the
individuals concerned and for public confidence in the institution as a
whole;
that the process will require difficult judgments to be made (e.g.
distinguishing between theft and ‘muddle headedness’) and careful
balances to be drawn between opposing viewpoints; and
the role of chair will therefore require both relevant
expertise/experience and broader “social skills”.
2. Through the course of the subsequent discussion AH clearly demonstrated his
attributes for the role:
a.
4A_27544698_1
his experience as an appellate judge managing cases that had been
referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission demonstrated his
ability to sift through the facts and deploy his skills of negotiation with
two opposing sides to persuade them to take the most appropriate course
of action (rather than launching straight into the appeal process);
linked to this, he had direct experience of dealing with people in highly
emotional states who were “dug into their position” (he gave the
example of dealing with life prisoners);
he clearly understood the emotional and psychological factors that might
lead some sub-postmasters to get into trouble and a spiral of false
accounting;
he explained his experience of chairing complex meetings involving
multiple stakeholders with conflicting agendas (in particular his experience
as deputy chair of a committee which reviewed sentencing guidelines);
he recognised that one of his first priorities upon taking the role would be
to establish effective relationships with the other working group members;
he said he had no problem with the work potentially being extended beyond
March;
he said he would be “very interested” in advising on
our future mediation/ombudsman arrangements;
he was clearly enthused by the role, summing up by saying that “it sounds
fascinating” and he “would love to take it forwards”; and
finally we also observed (after the meeting) that his unassuming
manner and understated authority would likely to be valuable
attributes in keeping all of the individuals involved in the working
group brought into the process.
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
3. He raised the fact that he didn’t directly meet two of our specified criteria for
the role:
a.
“successful track record of achievement at Board level within large public or
independent organisation” - we explained that we were flexible in our
interpretation of this requirement and that his experience was certainly
equivalent to Board level responsibilities;
“experience of schemes of this nature and ideally of mediation or of resolving
any disputes and complaints between professionals” - while AH hadn’t
performed a formal mediation role in the past, we were fully reassured that
his time as an appeals judge and his broader career history provided him
with ample experience of the techniques associated with mediation. He also
noted that he had undergone training in mediation.
4. During the conversation AH also offered a number of observations on the
scheme itself and the role of chair:
48_27548608_1
a.
b.
Overall he said he was confident that our broad approach was
“absolutely the right thing to do”.
He noted that chairing the working party itself would be a challenge
given the potentially conflicting interests/views of the members (but
indicated that he felt capable of meeting this challenge).
He suggested (quite firmly) that it might be more appropriate for cases that
have been through the courts to be referred to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission rather than go through the mediation scheme. (ACTION:
explain to AH our internal process for reviewing criminal cases and why we
believe it is necessary to allow some prosecuted cases to go into the mediation
process).
He highlighted that it would be important to have a clear ‘constitution’
which clarified what functions he would be performing as chair of the
working group versus in an independent advisory capacity. (NB we will
need to think carefully about extending his duties beyond those directly
related to the role of chair, particularly during the early phases of the
mediation process, to avoid undermining his credibility with the working
group. A more flexible approach could be taken at a later stage of the process.
On the specific discussion about reviewing our draft compensation policy, this
might more appropriately be performed by Brian Altman QC. These issues can
be tested informally during the initial consultation meeting with AH
suggested under the next steps below).
In the context of a discussion on the outcomes from the mediation process,
he observed that “sorry was a good word!” - we should be prepared to
apologise to sup-postmasters where appropriate.
He thought there might be an important role for preliminary oral hearings
in many cases before launching into the mediation process, in order for
both sides to come face to face with the issues and agree an appropriate
course of action.
He highlighted the risks that we may have with some old cases where the
evidence is now missing which: a) makes it difficult to reach a clear
resolution; and b) leaves us vulnerable to prosecuted cases being
overturned.
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
Next steps:
i.
ili.
Susan has already contacted Bond Dickinson to ask them to liaise with AH’s clerk
to negotiate a fixed fee for the work up to the end of March.
Subject to a successful outcome of that discussion, we will then draw
up a formal appointment letter to send to AH.
We will then schedule an initial consultation meeting with AH as soon as possible
to follow up on the questions and discussion points noted above, clarifying the
boundaries of the role and also inviting his views on the wider process to help
shape the specific details. As part of this discussion it will be important to reach a
clear understanding on the terms of reference for both the chair and the working
group, to ensure it doesn’t go too wide or too long. (NB given that Susan is on leave
from Thursday this meeting may need to be handled by another member of the PO
legal team and the relevant senior partners from Bond Dickinson who have been
closely involved in drawing up the mediation scheme).
25 eptember 2013
48_27548608_1 13
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
7 Hillsborough Issue
a Summary
Background
° In 2000, Sir Anthony sat as the presiding judge in a Crown Court prosecution of two senior police
officers involved in the Hillsborough disaster.
. It was a private prosecution brought by the families of the Hillsborough victims (ie. it was not
being prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service).
. In a preliminary hearing before the main trial commenced, the officers' defence team asserted
that the prosecution was oppressive and should not be allowed to continue. In response, Sir
Anthony gave a ruling that, although he would allow the prosecution to continue, he would not
pass a custodial sentence if the officers were found guilty. He effectively guaranteed that the
officers would not go to prison (see extract from Sir Anthony's ruling at (b) below — particularly
the final paragraph.)
. The ruling, although formally recorded at the time, was suppressed from the jury at the main trial.
The jury later rendered a not guilty verdict for one officer and "no verdict" for the other officer.
° Sir Anthony's comment later re-surfaced as part of the Hillsborough Inquiry conducted in 2012,
where the Report quoted Sir Anthony's decision as being “unusual” (see extract from the
Hillsborough Report at (c) below).
. There followed some negative press coverage about Sir Anthony's decision (see examples at (d)
below).
Risk
The media may use the above information to depict Sir Anthony as being an unsuitable Chair for
the Scheme and/or as someone who has a bias towards protecting institutions over the interests
of individuals.
Mitigating factors
Sir Anthony's ruling has not been appealed.
As far as anyone is aware, Sir Anthony has not been called before any disciplinary committee.
POL's criminal lawyers have confirmed that this type of approach is unusual but not unheard of.
Sir Anthony's decision was made and recorded in open Court.
Sir Anthony notes in his own ruling that his decision was a "highly unusual course but that [it
was] a highly unusual case".
Some years after the case, Sir Anthony was promoted to the Court of Appeal, which suggests
that his reputation in legal/ judicial circles was unblemished by this ruling.
Sir Anthony's approach could be characterised as courageous, innovative and pragmatic — which
are qualities that Post Office is seeking in a Chairman. He could have dismissed or stayed the
48_27548608_1 14
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
prosecution entirely but sought to reach a compromise through giving commitments around
sentencing.
. Sir Anthony was recommended by JFSA, which reduces the risk of criticism from JFSA.
° Furthermore, Post Office will seek to agree a joint press release with JFSA to ensure JFSA's
public commitment to the appointment.
48_27548608_1 15
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
(b) Extract from Sir Anthony's Ruling
IN THE CROWN COURT AT LEEDS
R v David Duckenfield and Bernard Murray
Case no. T19991569
16 February 2000
BEFORE THE HON MR JUSTICE HOOPER
RULING
Pages 32-37
(1
The prosecution is so oppressive, unfair and wrong that it should not be allowed to continue.
An attack was made on the objectivity of the prosecution team and particularly Miss Adlington. I confess
to some reservations about the manner in which the prosecution has been conducted, for example the
decision to start these proceedings in the Liverpool area, Mr Jones' argument at the PDH to the effect
that admissions made by the defendants only for the purposes of the committal proceedings were
binding at trial and his argument that I should admit into evidence an attendance note of a solicitor who.
was not to be called because the prosecution did not believe a word he said. A similar argument was
raised about Miss Adlington before Mr Cadbury and was rejected by him (volume 8, tab 7 pages 100-
101). I see no reason to depart from his finding nor to stop the proceedings for this reason. I make it
clear, however, that I expect the prosecution to act properly and fairly. I am sure it will. If it does not I
shall not hesitate to act.
It is submitted that the proceedings should be stayed because the prosecution was only launched after
the Mr McGovern film which was a distortion of the truth. The prosecution has been "prompted by a
distorted and misrepresented view of the true facts". I understand the description "misrepresented" to
refer to matters unconnected with the evidence upon which the prosecution rely in this case. It is
submitted that this prosecution has "become a private persecution brought against the background of an
unprecedented level of media vilification of the defendants and a stirring up of emotional passions”. I
see no merit in these arguments provided the defendant can have a fair trial, as I have found they can
and provided that the prosecution is not so oppressive that it ought not be allowed to continue, a matter
to which I return shortly.
It is submitted that, given that the evidence has not changed since 1989-90, the prosecution should be
stayed having regard to the earlier decisions not to prosecute, the verdict of the Coroner's jury, the
results of the review conducted by Stuart-Smith LJ and the enforcement of the conclusions therein by the
Home Secretary and the DPP. It is submitted that there is here "a refusal to accept earlier decisions".
Similar arguments were put to the DPP and, it appears, to the Divisional Court in March of last year. Mr
Newell outlined this argument in paragraph 2(1) of his affidavit where he dealt with factors tending
against prosecution. The position has further changed in favour of the prosecution in that there is now a
case to answer. Against this background, I see no justification in quashing the proceedings for this
reason, assuming, without deciding, that this could be a free-standing ground to quash.
It is submitted that a court has a duty to be extra vigilant when a private prosecution is brought because
private prosecutors are not subject to the same code as public prosecuting authorities: “the duty of the
court to protect defendants from oppression and abuse against a private prosecutor calls for a different
approach” than that followed where public prosecuting authorities are concerned. Private prosecution
“must not be allowed to become an unfettered indulgence". It is submitted that this prosecution is so
unfair, unreasonable and wrong that it should not be allowed to proceed. These are similar arguments to
those developed in the Divisional Court, since when, as I have said, there has been found a case to
4A_27544698_1 16
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
answer. In my view it would not be right for me to apply the CPS evidentiary test and decide whether
there is a realistic prospect of a conviction. Indeed I was not asked to carry out a detailed examination of
the evidence. Insofar as public interest is concerned, assuming that a private prosecutor should take
that into account, the Divisional Court has already held that the decision not to intervene is not
Wednesbury unreasonable. Subject to the issue of oppression, I see no reason why I should interfere
with the decision to prosecute which, it seems to me, is also once that a reasonable prosecutor could
reach.
It is submitted on the analogy of cases like R. v. Croydon Justices, ex parte Dean (1994) 98 Cr.App.R.
76 that there had been, in effect, an undertaking to the defendants that they should not be prosecuted.
Reliance is placed on what Mr Jones said during the Divisional Court hearing in 1993 against the
background of the CPS decisions not to prosecute. Nothing that Mr Jones said on behalf of the six
families who took those proceedings can be regarded as an undertaking of the kind referred to in
Croydon Justices. This is not a case, on the evidence before me, where a person has relied upon a
promise or undertaking (see Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [1995] 1AC 396 at 417).
I turn to the question which has given me the most concern: “Is this prosecution so oppressive to these
defendants that it ought to be stayed?" There was no dispute that an prosecution could be so
oppressive that it should be stayed. In Latif [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. 92, at 101 (H.L.) Lord Steyn said the
law is settled:
“Weighing countervailing considerations of policy and justice, it is for the judge in the exercise of
his discretion to decide whether there has been an abuse of process, which amounts to an
affront to the public conscience and requires the criminal proceedings to be stayed ... or where it
would be contrary to the public interest in the integrity of the criminal justice system that a trial
should take place. ... [T]he judge must weigh in the balance the public interest in ensuring that
those that are charged with grave crimes should be tried and the competing public interest in not
conveying the impression that the court will adopt the approach that the end justifies the means".
In Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1990) (1992) 95 Cr.App.R. 296, at 302-303 Lord Lane CU
said:
"Stays imposed on the ground of delay or for any other reason should only be employed in
exceptional circumstances. If they were to become a matter of routine, it would be only a short
time before the public, understandably, viewed the process with suspicion and mistrust. ..."
That case and the earlier case of Heston-Francois (1984) 78 Cr.App.R. 209 refer to the alternatives
open to a trial judge other than stopping a trial.
In Dept. of Transport v. Chris Smaller Ltd 1989 AC 1197, at 1210 (a civil case) Lord Griffiths said:
“I would, however, express a note of caution against allowing the mere fact of the anxiety that
accompanies any litigation being regarded as of itself a sufficient prejudice to justify striking out
an action ... There are, however, passages in some of the judgments that suggest that the mere
sword of Damocles, hanging for an unnecessary period, might be a sufficient reason of itself to
strike out. On this aspect I repeat the note of caution I expressed in the Court of Appeal in Eagil
Trust Co. Ltd v. Pigott-Brown [1985] 3 All ER 119, 124, where I said:
“Any action is bound by cause anxiety, but it would as a general rule be an exceptional
case where that sort of anxiety alone would found a sufficient ground for striking out in
the absence of evidence of any particular prejudice. Biss's case is an example of such
an exceptional case, the action hanging over for 11 years, with professional reputations
at stake.”
In the ruling of Buckley J. (unreported, 09/96, C.C.C.) following the acquittal of Kevin Maxwell and others
at the first trial can be found the following passage (at page 233-234):
“Finally, an important, though not decisive consideration; fairness to the Defendants. I have
mentioned the time that these criminal proceedings would have been hanging over their heads in
the event of a further trial, at least five years. That would be so, in Mr Kevin Maxwell's case,
4A_27544698_1 7
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
notwithstanding that in going through the extremely lengthy trial process he gave evidence
before the jury for twenty days and notwithstanding the acquittals. The disruption to personal
and business life is inevitably considerable. The stress and pain that criminals inflict on their
families is a sad but inevitable consequence of their misdeeds. Courts are mindful of it but
obviously cannot allow it to outweigh consideration for victims and the general public interest in
punishing crime. But I remind myself here that these Defendants have been acquitted and in the
circumstances I have described. As I mentioned earlier Mrs Kevin Maxwell gave evidence
before me. Her obvious distress was, I am convinced, entirely genuine. She described the
agony of trial and the days waiting for the verdict with the prospect of a significant prison
sentence in the balance. She told me of problems with her children. In particular, their son who
had been told by schoolmates that his father was going to prison for a long time. Whenever her
husband goes out she is now repeatedly asked "Will daddy be coming home again?".
I can understand the expectation that built up in the family’s mind that an acquittal would be the
end of the matter. Mrs Maxwell's bewilderment and anger at the decision to proceed to another
trial were not feigned. I cannot be over influenced by such matters but no one could have been
unmoved by her evidence.”
On the other side of the balance is the public interest put succinctly by Mr Newell in the 1999 Divisional
Court proceedings:
"... there was in my view on extremely important factor in favour of prosecution, namely the very
serious nature of the alleged offences, in particular, the alleged offences of manslaughter. In my
opinion, the allegation that two senior police officers were responsible for the deaths of a number
of people as a result of criminal negligence was a very grave allegation”.
Doing my best to resolve the competing interests of the defendants and the public, I have decided that
there is an alternative to a stay. I conclude that the oppression is not such as to prevent the trial from
taking place but that I should not reduce to a significant extent the anguish being suffered by these
defendants. I do that by making it clear that the two defendants will not immediately lose their liberty
should they be convicted. This is, I accept, a highly unusual course, but this is a highly unusual case.
When I canvassed this possibility with Mr Jones, he fairly and helpfully drew my attention to evidence
that the families were not, apparently, seeking punishment of this kind (page 6 of transcript of evidence
of Miss Adlington before the Stipendiary Magistrate).
tal
48_27548608_1 18
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
(c) Extract from Hillsborough Inquiry Report
Hillsborough: The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel - September 2012
1.254
1.255
1.256
1.257
1.258
1.259
1.260
1.261
4A_27544698_1
L-]
In August 1998 the Hillsborough Family Support Group initiated a private
prosecution against David Duckenfield and Bernard Murray. It was the
culmination of a decade’s campaigning to establish criminal liability and to access
key documents, witness statements and personal ‘body files’ on each of the
deceased compiled by the police investigators.
On 16 February 2000 the former officers were committed for trial, charged with
manslaughter and misconduct in a public office. Mr Duckenfield was also charged
with misconduct ‘arising from an admitted lie told by him to the effect that the
[exit] gates had been forced open by Liverpool fans’.
The judge, Mr Justice Hooper, summarised the prosecution case for
manslaughter as the failure by the officers to prevent a crush on the terraces and
to divert fans from the tunnel. The risk of serious injury, therefore, had been
foreseeable. The ‘apparent’ defence case was that neither officer ‘in the situation
in which they found themselves, thought about closing off the tunnel or foresaw
the risk of serious injury in the pen if they did not do so’.
The judge noted the ‘enduring grief suffered by the bereaved. It was
compounded by ‘a deep seated and obviously genuine grievance that those
thought responsible’ had not been prosecuted or ‘even disciplined’. Both
defendants, however, ‘must be suffering a considerable amount of strain’.
While committing Mr Duckenfield and Mr Murray for trial he took a ‘highly unusual
course’ to ‘reduce to a significant extent the anguish being suffered’. He stated
that if the former officers were found to be guilty of manslaughter, neither would
face a prison sentence. This extraordinary assurance could not be disclosed until
after the trial.
The trial opened on 6 June 2000 at Leeds Crown Court and ran for seven weeks.
The prosecution’s case was that fans died because they could not breathe in a
crush due to overcrowding ‘caused by the criminal negligence of the two
defendants’.
Both had been ‘grossly negligent, wilfully neglecting to ensure the safety of
supporters’. Their negligence was not the sole cause of the disaster as the
ground was ‘old, shabby, badly arranged, with confusing and unhelpful sign-
posting ... there were not enough turnstiles’.
Further, an entrenched ‘police culture ... influenced the way in which matches
were policed’. Nevertheless, the ‘primary and immediate cause of death’ was the
consequence of the defendants’ failures. Each defendant ‘owed the deceased a
duty of care’ and ‘his negligent actions or omissions were a substantial cause of
death’. Their ‘negligence was of such gravity as to amount to a crime’.
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
1.262
1.263
1.264
1.265
1.266
1.267
1.268
4A_27544698_1
Mr Duckenfield declined to give evidence but his evidence to the Taylor Inquiry
was presented in detail. The judge called as a witness Mr Duckenfield’s
predecessor, former 57 Chief Superintendent Mole, as he had drafted the Police
Operational Order, introducing him as a crowd safety ‘expert’.
Mr Murray gave evidence. Closing off the tunnel was ‘something that did not
occur to me at the time and I only wish it had’. While not recognising how packed
the central pens had become, he had not been ‘indifferent to the scenes ... I did
not see anything occurring on the terrace which gave me any anxiety’.
Between 14 and 20 June the prosecution called 24 witnesses. At the conclusion
of the evidence the judge identified four questions for the jury to consider. First,
‘Are you sure, that by having regard to all the circumstances, it was foreseeable
by a reasonable match commander that allowing a large number of spectators to
enter the stadium through exit Gate C without closing the tunnel would create an
obvious and serious risk of death to the spectators in pens 3 and 4?’ If ‘yes’, they
were to move to question 2; if ‘no’, the verdicts should be ‘not guilty’. Second,
could a ‘reasonable match commander’ have taken ‘effective steps ... to close off
the tunnel’ thus preventing the deaths? If ‘yes’, they were to move to question 3;
if ‘no’, the verdicts should be ‘not guilty’. Third, was the jury ‘sure that the failure
to take such steps was neglect?’ If ‘yes’, it was on to question 4; if ‘no’, the
verdicts should be ‘not guilty’. Fourth, was the ‘failure to take those steps ... so
bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a very serious criminal offence?’ If
‘yes’, the verdicts should be ‘guilty’; if ‘no’, they should be ‘not guilty’.
Each question had to be contextualised ‘in all the circumstances’ in which the
defendants had acted. Centrally, did the circumstances of chaos and confusion
impede or mitigate the senior officers’ decisions? On opening Gate C, was an
obvious and serious risk of death in the central pens ‘foreseeable’ by a
‘reasonable match commander?’ Not someone of exceptional experience and
vision, but an ‘ordinary’ or ‘average’ match commander. Even if gross negligence
could be established, question 4 demanded that it had to be so bad in the
circumstances that it constituted a serious criminal offence.
The prosecution argued that the police ‘mindset’ of ‘hooliganism’ at the expense
of crowd safety was ‘a failure’ best captured ‘in the word neglect’. It was not a
failure caused by the immediacy of a ‘split-second decision’ but ‘a case of slow-
motion negligence’.
Like all others in the stadium, Mr Duckenfield and Mr Murray could see the
‘dangerously full pens’ and had adequate ‘thinking time’ to seal the tunnel and
redirect the fans. Their failure was negligent and not postponing the kick-off
‘intensified the responsibilities of those who had taken the decision to get it right’.
It was a serious criminal offence because ‘thousands of people’ had been
affected by the breach of trust in the officers.
Mr Duckenfield’s Counsel considered that the events were ‘unprecedented,
unforeseeable and unique’. He maintained that a ‘unique, unforeseeable,
physical phenomenon’, unprecedented in the stadium's history, occurred in the
tunnel. People were projected forward with such ferocity that others died on the
terraces in the consequent surge. It was the result of a small minority of over-
eager fans who had caused crushing at the turnstiles, whose actions were
perhaps responsible for the projection of unprecedented force in the tunnel.
20
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
1.269
1.270
1.271
1.272
1.273
1.274
4A_27544698_1
Cond Dideingow
Mr Murray's Counsel argued that what happened was not slow-motion
negligence but ‘a disaster that struck out of the blue’. The deaths were not
foreseeable and no ‘reasonably competent’ senior officer could have anticipated
the sequence of events as they progressed. While the police operation might
have ‘had many deficiencies’, Mr Duckenfield 58 and Mr Murray should not be
singled out to ‘carry the can’. The terraces had been authorised as safe, the fans
‘finding their own level’ was taken for granted. It was ‘Mole’s policy, Mole’s
custom and practice’. A conviction would make Mr Murray a ‘scapegoat’.
Having heard the closing speeches, the judge emphasised that the case had to
be assessed ‘by the standards of 1989’ when ‘caged pens were accepted’ and
‘had the full approval of all the authorities as a response to hooliganism’. The
defendants had to be regarded as ‘reasonable professionals’ — each of them ‘an
ordinary competent person’, not a ‘Paragon or a prophet’.
When the exit gates were opened, ‘death was not in the reckoning of those
officers’. They were responding to a ‘life and death situation’ at the turnstiles and
the jury had to ‘take into account that this was a crisis’. The jury should ‘be slow
to find fault with those who act in an emergency’; a situation of ‘severe crisis’ in
which ‘decisions had to be made quickly’.
J Hooper noted the ‘huge difference between an error of judgement and
negligence’, that ‘many errors of judgement we make in our lives are not
negligent’ and ‘the mere fact that there has been a disaster does not make these
two defendants negligent’.
For a guilty verdict, the negligence would have to have been ‘so bad [as] to
amount to a very serious offence in a crisis situation’. There were two key
questions: ‘Would a criminal conviction send out a wrong message to those who
have to react to an emergency and take decisions? Would it be right to punish
someone for taking a decision and not considering the consequences in a crisis
situation?’
After 16 hours of discussion the jury was instructed that a majority verdict would
be accepted. Over five hours later, Mr Murray was acquitted. The jury was
discharged without reaching a verdict on Mr Duckenfield and the judge refused
the application for a re-trial.
bl
21
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
d Sample media reports
BBC News -— 25 September 2013
http://www. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19710415
Hillsborough: Officers ‘reassured’ by judge
Two police officers accused of manslaughter after the Hillsborough disaster were told they would not
face jail before the case was heard.
The comments, made by Mr Justice Anthony Hooper, were published in The Hillsborough Independent
Panel report.
The Hillsborough Family Support Group brought the private prosecution against Ch Supt David
Duckenfield and Supt Bernard Murray in 2000.
The pair were in charge when 96 Liverpool fans died in April 1989.
At the end of the trial, held at Leeds Crown Court, Mr Murray was found not guilty and a verdict could not
be reached on Mr Duckenfield.
At the time, Mr Justice Hooper had rejected an application to halt the prosecution from the officers’
defence team.
But he also said he wanted to reassure the two former officers and reduce their anguish, especially as if
they were jailed there was a "considerable risk of serious injury if not death at the hands of those who
feel very strongly about Hillsborough".
‘Unprecedented’ move
He stated that if the former officers were found to be guilty of manslaughter, neither would face a prison
sentence.
The assurance, however, could not be disclosed until after the trial.
Merseyside solicitor David Kirwan said it was "almost unprecedented" that a judge would assure
defendants in a trial.
He said: "A judge would never make any comment before a trial or during the trial about the effect of the
prosecution on a defendant.
“He would be very loathe to say anything about, say for example, a witness in a case that would
influence a jury in any way.
“A judge has to be very, very impartial, and what you have described is a very, very great departure from
that impartiality that we expect."
The BBC has contacted the Judicial Office for Mr Hooper's reaction, but was told judges will not
comment on past cases.
The report into the Hillsborough disaster, published on 12 September, revealed a police cover-up which
attempted to shift the blame on to the victims.
48_27548608_1 2
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
Margaret Aspinall, chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group who lost her son James in the
disaster, said it was just another example of how badly the families of the 96 victims were let down.
“Every day there are revelations but there are a lot of those revelations that ordinary people don't realise
we already knew,” she said.
“Obviously we didn't know the magnitude of it all and it just gets bigger and bigger.
“It shows me what kind of a system we were living in at the time."
The Journal - 30 September 2012
http://www.thejournal.ie/hillsborough-documents-findings-6 10386-Sep2012/
“In 2000, the aforementioned chief superintendent Duckenfield and his deputy Superintendent Bernard
Murray were the subject of a private prosecution by the victims’ families through the Hillsborough Family
Support Group (HSFG). Accused of manslaughter, the judge at Leeds Crown Court, Anthony Hooper first
rejected a defence team application to halt the prosecution.
But he also assured the two accused that if they were to be found guilty of manslaughter they would not
go to jail, an assurance that was not disclosed until after the trial but has taken on a new importance in
the wake of the panel's report. The judge told the pair prior to the trial that if they were jailed there would
be “considerable risk of serious injury if not death at the hands of those who feel very strongly about
Hillsborough”. It was an unprecedented move that legal experts have said is a departure from the
impartiality expected of a judge.
In the end Murray was found not guilty while a verdict could not be reached on Duckenfield. Families
have always believed that their case against Duckenfield and Murray was hampered by key evidence
being ruled inadmissible while they have also alleged that Hooper's summing-up was biased against a
guilty verdict. The panel ‘s report described the assurance that the judge gave the accused pair as
“extraordinary”.
Murray has since died while Duckenfield did not give evidence at the trial and has never spoken publicly
about his involvement at Hillsborough."
48_27548608_1 23
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
(e) Note of call with Sir Anthony on 8 October 2013 re Hillsborough issues
[TO BE INSERTED FOLLOWING CALL]
48_27548608_1 24
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
8 Letter of Appointment
Sir Anthony Hooper
Matrix Chambers
Griffin Building
Gray’s Inn
London
WC1R SLN
[DATE] 2013
Dear Sir Anthony
Chair of the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
The Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme ("the Scheme") has been
established to help resolve the concerns of current and former Subpostmasters
(as well as Crown branch employees) ice's Horizon system
and other associated issues.
Post Office Limited ("Post Office") is determined to ensure that Horizon and
its associated processes are fair, effective and reliable, and that
Subpostmasters can have confidence in the system. some instances
however, Subpostmasters allege that Post Office and Horizon have not met
these standards
collaboration with the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and a group of
MPs led by the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP, Post Office established an Inquiry
into Horizon. dependent forensic accountants, Second Sight, were appointed
to lead that Inquiry and have been working with a number of Subpostmasters
for over 12 months.
Post Office now wishes to offer the Scheme to Subpostmasters so that
individual Subpostmasters have an opportunity to raise their concerns
directly with Post Office. In partnership with Subpostmasters, the JFSA
Second Sight and interested MPs, all sides can then work towards resolving
those concerns.
The Scheme has been developed by Post Office, Second Sight and the Justice
for Subpostmasters Alliance, who form the Working Group which is overseeing
the management and operation of the Scheme.
Post Office, on behalf of the Working Group, is pleased to confirm your
appointment as the independent Chair of the Working Group.
This letter sets out the terms of your appointment. Whilst it is being
sued by Post ce, this letter, including the scope of your role, has
been approved by the Working Group.
Your Role
As the Chair of the Working Group you are to provide independent leadership,
scrutiny and challenge to the Working Group to ensure that the Scheme
achieves its objectives and offers value for money to tax payers. In
particular, you are to:-
¢ ensure that the Working Group operates in accordance with its Terms of
Reference;
* Chair all meetings / telephone conferences of the Working Group unless
another person is nominated by the Working Group;
48_27548608_1 25
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
* provide leadership to the Working Group to enhance its effectiveness
including by:-
© ensuring that the responsibilities of the Working Group are
understood by all members;
© providing leadership to enable the Working Group to work as a
cohesive and productive group; and
o demonstrating integrity and ethical leadership by encouraging a
climate of trust and openness;
* manage the Working Group, including by
© preparing the agenda for meetings / telephone conferences; and
o adopting processes to enable the Working Group to conduct its
work effectively and efficiently including the scheduling and
management of meetings, record keeping and reporting as detailed
in the Working Group Terms of Reference; and
* ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, equality of access to the
Scheme for all complainants irrespective of age, disability, gender
race, religion or sexual orientation.
rm
Your appointment as Chair of the Working Group will be for an initial term
from the date of this letter until 31 March 2014. Following the end of the
initial term the Working Group will consider how the Scheme is progressing
and the on-going requirement for a Chaiz. Equally, at the end of the initial
term you may choose to resign the position.
Fees
Post Office agrees to pay you a fixed fee of £20,000 plus VAT in respect of
all time spent by you fulfilling the role of Chair of the Working Group
during the initial term, ending on 31 March 2014. You will be expected to
allocate sufficient time to perform your role as Chair, which is expected to
take around 75 hours during the initial term.
As set out above, whilst Post Office is paying your fees, you are to act
independently.
Next Steps
In order to determine how best to allocate your time we suggest that the
Working Group sets up an initial meeting with you to discuss the Scheme and
the work which will be carried out. The Working Group will be in touch
shortly to discuss this.
Post Office and the Working Group look forward to working with you.
Yours sincerely
Paula Vennelis
Chief Executive
For and on beha.
of Post Office Limited
48_27548608_1 28
POL-0106336
POL00108207
POL00108207
Confidential and legally privileged
Cond Dideingow
9 External communications
[TO BE INSERTED ONCE AGREED]
4A_27544698_1 ar
POL-0106336