POL00117702
POL00117702
From: Jane MacLeodf_ nen GRO
Sent: Sat 21/05/2016 3:35:53 PM (UTC)
To: Paula VennellsI
Davies[f-""~
Bourkeff
Ce: Alisdair Cameroi
Lyons§
Thomas P Moranf[f.
Subject: RE: Sparrow Board paper
Paula
I will coordinate the advice you have requested.
ALL - please note that all Board papers, minutes, emails and other correspondence are now potentially disclosable in the
litigation, as well as being subject to FOIA disclosure.
Accordingly any correspondence in any form (whether letters, memos, email or text - and whether on PO or personal
accounts) relating to Sparrow and the matters subject to the litigation - must be addressed to either Rod Williams or
myself and others should only be cc'd and those must be kept to a minimum, in order to ensure that to the extent
possible, the correspondence is protected by privilege, and must have in the Subject line of the email - REQUEST FOR
ADVICE.
Equally, all relevant emails from Rod & myself will state that they are ADVICE - SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE. Such emails must not be forwarded to any third person - whether in or out of PO.
Jane
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
Ground Floor20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number:
-----Original Message-----
From: Paula Vennells
Sent: 21 May 2016 11:32
To: Jane MacLeod; Mark R Davies; Tom Wechsler; Patrick Bourke
Cc: Alisdair Cameron; Alwen Lyons
Subject: Sparrow Board paper
Hi Jane/Patrick,
Thanks for the above. A couple of questions (some building on the GE discussion so I have the answers documented):
1) who have we engaged as our primary legal advisers alongside BD? If BD alone, are they equipped - experienced
enough and street wise enough? And do they have specialism/experience in point 3 below? (You may have mentioned
Linklaters in this context?)
2) who/what is our internal resource/governance?
3) I won't describe this correctly but you will follow my point (it relates to Sir Tony Hooper's concern and one of the
issues at the heart of the Hillsborough case): can we (Al, Neil, Kevin and myself) have a deep dive on the issues related
to the (im)balance of power of the institution vs the individual. We need to understand this irrespective of Sparrow.
4) the paper is well written, balanced and reassures me we will handle it well. Thank you. Notwithstanding... could
POL00117702
POL00117702
you/Mark put on your blackest hats and think through the worst outcomes: I would like a downside horizon scan. Eg.,
are there any judicial review or (mis)use of public funds angles at all - costs expended to date, failure of our own
mediation mediation scheme.
5) Horizon expert - the board note doesn't cover this: we need to brief the new NEDs and remind the others - could
you/Tom give me a speaking note.
6) Stakeholders section: paras 22 and 23 - needs to include more on political, Goverment and IR stakeholders. Eg..
keeping ministers and MPs briefed and calm in the run up to the next GE; managing the CWU/NFSP; specific journalists
and media interest; etc. Could Mark/Tom provide a speaking note.
I want to be sure we share all angles with the NEDs so they are fully appraised as to how noisy/difficult it could become.
(At what point might it be sensible to give the board a deep dive, if the timetable plays out as you indicate?) I believe we
will manage this well with our new board.
Thanks for a good and clear paper.
Paula
Sent from my iPhone