POL00117187
POL00117187
From: Belinda Crowe[IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FY DIBOHF23SPDLT+29
“CN=RECIPIENTS_( NDA\
F5B4958489172201 GRO :
Sent: Mon 09/03/2015 8:57:13 AM (UTC)
To: Jane MacLeod:
Ce: Belinda Crowe:
Bourke:
Mark R Davie:
Patrick
slerI
Melanie Corfieldt
Subject: RE: Fwd: JS letter
Attachment: JSlettr-1.docx
Both
I know Jane is looking at this and do not want to encourage a protracted email debate but on the non-legal points I
think that:
a) It would be difficult to rely on ‘CEDR advice’ in this way:
i, Tony has said in a decision which has gone to an applicant that he thinks we can mediate criminal
cases (albeit on narrow grounds) and that is known by JFSA and others involved in the Scheme
ii. If someone asks CEDR they may not be as unequivocal as this suggests
iii. We will be mediating cases where we think there is no reasonable prospect of success as that is
likely to be the case with a number of non-criminal cases (and it is those cases which formed the basis
for CEDR’s comments in their report)
b) We cannot say that independent forensic accountants have ratified anything in relation to disclosure:
i. They do not have the necessary expertise to make this judgement, a point we keep making, so we
cannot on the one hand say that they have confirmed something in relation to criminal law and
procedure and on the other pray them in aid on the subject (I realise that is not quite what we are
doing here but close enough to be problematic)
ii. They have publically accused us of withholding information generally therefore I would not
Overall my view is that the more we play in others the more they are likely to be brought into the debate and our
position likely to unravel or be undermined publicly.
Suggested draft attached.
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ.
__GRO
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 09 March 2015 08:18
To: Mark R Davies; Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfield; Tom Wechsler
Cc: Jane MacLeod
Subject: Re: Fwd: JS letter
POL00117187
POL00117187
Morning Mark
The degree of legal risk is a matter for legal colleagues but, for what it is worth, my own view is that there is a risk of
our reasonably robust and workable stance on criminal cases beginning to fray at the edges in an undesirable way.
I must caveat this since I am unsighted as to what, if any, additional work has been done to quantify the risk of
collective action against POL which is making it prey on Paula's mind in the way it clearly is. Do we have a view on the
basis for any action of this nature, in particular in criminal cases ?
In terms of specifics, at paragraph 6, the second sentence is incomplete. More generally, I am a bit uncomfortable on
seeking to rely too much on CEDR guidance to justify our stance. I personally think there are perfectly good reasons
not to mediate these cases (and that has been the advice of our external criminal lawyers) and I wouldn't want to be
accused of hiding behind CEDR advice: we should decide for ourselves what is the right approach and pursue it.
At paragraph 7, introducing the notion that some cases may (in POL's view) present an opportunity for resolution
through mediation could open things up in an unhelpful way - what would the criteria for that assessment be; could
someone challenge it etc.
Patrick
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 07:32 AM
To: Belinda Crowe; Melanie Corfield; Tom Wechsler; Patrick Bourke
Cc: Jane MacLeod
Subject: Fwd: JS letter
All
To see.
Please can I views on this pre 0930?
M
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paula Vennells + GRO
Date: 8 March 2015 :
To: Mark R Davies + GRO
ane MacLeod
Hi both.
I have amended slightly to buy us some more space. If we could buy even more and avoid a class action I would do
so. I do not want to do anything that aggravates or accelerates that possibility if we can help it. Therefore, anything
that continues to respond flexibly on individual issues the better.
Let's discuss in the morning.
Thanks,
Paula
Paula Vennells
Chief Executive
Post Office Ltd
Sent from my iPad
POL00117187
POL00117187