POL00119834
POL00119834
CLI Review of R v Lisa Brennan!
Case Summary
Introduction
1. Lisa Margaret Brennan was employed as a Crown Office employee on 18 September 1989?
and worked in various Post Office branches as a counter clerk. From June 1995, she
worked as a counter clerk at the Huyton Post Office, Liverpool. Her employment was
terminated on 2 June 2002. She had no previous convictions recorded against her.*
2. On 4 September 2003, she was convicted by a jury of 27 counts of theft following a trial at
Liverpool Crown Court. She was acquitted of a further five counts of theft. On 6
September 2003, she was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years
in respect of the shortfall at Huyton Post Office of £3,482.40.
3. Mrs Brennan was one of the 39 appellants whose convictions were quashed by the Court of
Appeal in the case of Hamilton and Others [2021] EWCA Crim 577. Post Office Limited
(‘POL’) conceded that her prosecution was unfair (Ground 1), and the Court additionally
ruled that her prosecution was also an affront to justice (Ground 2). Her previous appeal
against conviction had been dismissed on 11 May 2004.4
4. Mrs Brennan has given human impact evidence to the Inquiry.
Prosecution Case
5. During an audit on 2 June 2002, shortly after the rollout of the Horizon system, various
discrepancies were identified at the Huyton branch where Mrs Brennan worked with
others. It was alleged that those discrepancies occurred whilst Mrs Brennan was paying out
cash for allowance and benefit vouchers, by removing more money than the vouchers
permitted and effectively keeping the difference herself: £3,482.40. The evidence relied
' This document was drafted after a review of 112 documents tagged as relevant to the case of Lisa Brennan,
together with reference to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) judgment of Hamilton and Others [2021]
EWCA Crim 577 and the initial Case Summary prepared by Helen Jones on 18 May 2020.
? Doc ID POL-0089914 — Email from Ainslie Cranwell to Martin Smith and Harry Bowyer, cc’ing Rodric
Williams, dated 31 October 2019. Re Post Office Horizon Litigation.
5 Doc ID POL-0043805; POL-0087911 [Inquiry URN: POL00047326] — Consignia Antecedents Form.
* Doc ID POL-0063081; POL-0089815 [Inquiry URN: POL00066602} — Appealed on the basis of inconsistent
verdicts: R v. Brennan [2004] EWCA Crim 1329.
POL00119834
POL00119834
upon to support the charges of theft was the difference between the amount Horizon
showed had been entered onto the system and the lesser amount of the voucher(s) that had
been cashed.
6. Of the 32 counts of theft, a significant number included more than one discrepancy: in other
words, each count alleged theft in a particular sum, but the sum was in some cases
attributable to either a single incorrect voucher or multiple incorrect vouchers.
Defence Case
7. Ms Brennan admitted that there were discrepancies, but she said that the errors on her part
nd the pressures of work. She denied theft and said she did
not know what had happened to the money.
Interview of Lisa Brennan
8. Lisa Brennan was interviewed under caution by Steve Bradshaw and Anthony Gardner on
13 June 2002 (between 10.10am and 11.10am) at the Huyton Delivery Office in
Liverpool.* Also present was a Union representative, Steve Owens. She declined the offer
to have a solicitor present during the interview.
9. The interviewers proceeded to ask Lisa Brennan questions about the alleged offences and
her involvement. A record of taped interview is amongst the available papers’. The
following points are noted:
a) Ms Brennan explained that she had been employed by POL for 13 years,
having worked at various post offices. The last 7 years were at Huyton Post
Office, where she performed a full range of counter duties. She normally
worked 30 hours a week from Monday to Thursday, but also had shifts on
Saturdays.
b) When asked about the process of paying out a pension and allowance voucher,
Ms Brennan explained the process and the procedure for rectifying any
mistakes or reversals. She was asked what she would do if she was given a
5 Doc ID POL-0043792; POL-0087902 [Inquiry URN: POL00047313] — Submission of Tapes for
Transcription and Doc ID POL-0043997 — Witness Statement of Anthony Gardner, undated.
° Doc ID POL-0043799; POL-0087910 [Inquiry URN: POL00047320] — Record of Taped Interview of Lisa
Brennan, 13 June 2002, between 10.10 and 10.52 (25 pages)
2
c)
d)
POL00119834
POL00119834
pension docket for “£50 and accidentally entered £250 on the screen — would
she pay out £50 or £250. She replied: “J don’t know, maybe, maybe not, I
don’t know, it depends if I notice it. It’s that fast and busy in here, it depends if
you notice it”. When asked what she would think about someone who was
repeatedly making such mistakes to the value of £100.00 or £200.00 her reply
was, “They were crap. Well not too much crap, I don’t know. If you’re saying
it’s me, I don’t know. You're not gonna say I’m crap, I thought I was doing
my job all right”. The interviewers commented on her nervousness and offered
her a drink of water noting that they were not there to hound her, just to “get to
the bottom of the truth”.
In response to being asked how often she prepared her pensions and allowance
vouchers Ms Brennan replied every day if it’s not busy. After counting the
number of vouchers, they would be checked against the tally on the Horizon
print off. It was confirmed that she understood the impact of paying out the
correct amount of money but the wrong amount being entered on Horizon. She
was asked what her balancing record had been like and she replied “it’s been
alright.”
Ms Brennan was asked about a B stock transaction on 6 June 2002 where a
voucher for £26.30 had been declared and paid out as £226.30. She confirmed
that it was her user ID (LBROO1) which had processed that transaction. She
had no explanation as to why £226.30 was paid out. It was noted that her stock
was only £2 out [but it appears the interviewers may have meant £200] that day
and therefore the missing money can’t have been left in the till. She responded
that she had given it away. She was asked to clarify whether she is saying that
when a customer came in to collect their child benefit for £26.30, she had
accidentally paid out £226.30, to which she replied, “/ must have done, yeh”.
She was asked what would happen if the investigators tracked down the
individual who holds this particular benefit book — whether they would confirm
that they had been given £226.30 instead of £26.30. Ms Brennan replied: “/f
they're honest they'll say yeh, if they’re not they'll say no.”" She was asked
again, “you’re saying you paid out £226.30?” to which she replied, “J must
have done, I didn’t know, I haven’t got it.”
e)
g)
h)
POL00119834
POL00119834
A similar exercise was undertaken for a voucher of £15.75 that had been fed in
as £115.75 on 23 May 2000. She confirmed that this transaction had also been
performed by her user ID (LBRO01).
She was asked about a transaction of £250.60 on 31 May 2002 which does not
correlate with any of the retained dockets. As an explanation, Ms Brennan said
that she believed it to be “a mistake” as “I’m not doing the job very good”.
She was asked about the fact that when she was on leave, there were no
discrepancies in the vouchers, to which she replied, “J can’t believe it”. She
was asked, so you admit that you’re making the discrepancies then? She
replied: “Well I obviously have, haven’t I? Its me whose logged on”.
It was suggested to her that with 13 years’ experience, it is unlikely that she has
been so careless as to make this many mistakes. She was asked whether she
thought someone else may be using her user ID and she said no, but she works
fast and tries to get through the queue as quickly as she can.
She was asked about vouchers for £35.05 and £76.95, which had been put
through the system as £135.05 and £176.95, It was suggested to her that her
previous explanation of accidentally double-keying the first digit would not
explain these errors. If she had made the same error with these transactions, the
amount put through would have been £335.05 and £776.95, but on both
occasions an extra £100 had been put through the system. She agreed that that
explanation would not explain these discrepancies. Similarly, in week 44,
£115.50 was claimed as £215.50 and £22.48 was claimed as £122.48. She was
asked “/f it’s not carelessness and it’s not somebody else doing it, what does
that leave us with?” Ms Brennan replied: “you think I’m taking it”. She was
asked if she was taking it and she responded: “No, I haven't got it. Not that
that’s an excuse, not that it’s an excuse. My
head’s up my arse most of the time, I’m sorry. I’m trying to work as fast as I
can.”
She was asked again about her balances (i.e. if these were genuine errors, she
would have found a discrepancy when balancing) and she stated “no, I’ve
balanced alright.” The following exchange then took place:
POL00119834
POL00119834
Q. We’ve got a choice of 2 things haven’t we Lisa, either you're totally
incompetent and you're costing the Post Office 3 or 4 hundred pounds a
week and therefore we can’t afford to keep you...
A: Don’t sack me.
Q. Or you're fiddling the pensions deliberately and you're pocketing the
money.
A. No, I haven’t got it, I haven’t got it, I haven't.
Q. Someone’s got it.
A. I haven't got it.
j) Ms Brennan was asked why these issues were just happening in the pensions
and not the giros or savings bank. Her answer was, “dunno” and denied
deliberately taking the money. As to why nobody else was making the same
number of mistakes, Ms Brennan said that “they don’t work as fast as me. I've
been working dead fast. I haven’t got nothing new, I haven't got fridges and
freezers and whatever else have you, I’ve got nothing”.
10. After the tapes were changed the interview continued in the presence of the same persons
between 10.55am and 11.10am. A summary of the subsequent record of taped interview is
amongst the available papers’. The following points are noted:
a) The interviewing officers again queried why the discrepancies only appeared in
the pension and allowances, to which she repeated, “No, I’ve got no
explanation”. She agreed that losses of £1,000.00 in a few weeks were a little
bit more than careless. Ms Brennan maintained that, “Yeh. I haven’t got it,
that’s all I can say. I haven't got it...what if I’m serving them and say I pay off
the docket and I'm giving it somewhere else short in the day and not knowing
or... I know I'm like clutching at straws here”. Asked whether she was
making two mistakes, she responded, “Several, I don’t know. I really don’t
know”.
5) Further in the interview, Ms Brennan stated that, “/ don’t know what to say, I
haven't got it, I haven't got it. I don’t want to lose my job if I’m crap or even if
” Doc ID POL-0043798; POL-0087909 — Record of Taped Interview of Lisa Brennan, 13 June 2002, between
10.55 and 11.10 (9 pages)
POL00119834
POL00119834
you think I’m robbing. I don’t want to lose my job. When asked why POL
should continue to employ her, she repeated, “J don’t want to lose my job. I
love my job. I thought I was good at my job”.
c) Ms Brennan denied stealing the money and did not know who else might have
taken it. Towards the end of her interview, she showed the officers her latest
personal girobank statement which was in credit of £582.00. The officers
conceded that “we can safely say that if any money’s been salted away it’s not
been put into the giro account” Upon being asked whether she wished to add
anything, she said, “No. I’m sorry”.
Schedule of Charges
11. A form sent to the police to notify them of the criminal proceedings shows that Ms Brennan
was initially charged with a single offence of theft, totalling £22,000.00, contrary to section
1 of the Theft Act 1968.‘ Neither the Schedule of Charges nor the Summons are within the
papers, so it is unclear whether this was amended in advance of the first appearance and/or
following independent legal advice.
12. It is further unclear what charges were committed to the Crown Court.
The Indictment
13. The preferred indictment in this case contained 32 counts of theft, contrary to section I of
the Theft Act 1968. The alleged offending spanned 20 December 2001 to 6 June 2002.
Court Hearings
14. Ms Brennan attended her first appearance before Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on 6
February 2003.° Not guilty pleas were entered, and she elected to be tried in the Crown
Court. The case was committed to the Crown Court at a committal hearing on 3 April
2003.
® Doc ID POL-0043806; POL-0087912 [Inquiry URN: POL00047327] — NPA 01.
° Doc ID POL-0043968; POL-0087948 [Inquiry URN: POL00047489] — Internal Memo from Steve Bradshaw,
dated 6 February 2003
POL00119834
POL00119834
15. Ms Brennan was arraigned on the 32-count indictment at the Preliminary Hearing at
Liverpool Crown Court on 14 May 2003.
16. Various Mentions were then listed in advance of the trial that commenced on 2 September
2003. Verdicts were returned by the jury on 4 September 2003."
17. The prosecution called two witnesses: Kathryn Rosenthal!’ (Branch Manager at Huyton
Post Office) and Steve Bradshaw’? (investigating officer).'*
18. Ms. Brennan gave evidence in her Defence. A short precis is contained within the transcript
(pp. 8 and 9) of HHJ Phipps’ Summing Up:
a) She was a person of good character who had worked at the post office without
any complaints about her work or previous disciplinary action. She had been
working as a counter clerk at Huyton Post Office.
c) In terms of work, she was being required to perform quickly and efficiently (
“fast”) in a branch that she described as a “nightmare” because of the working
environment and how busy it was. Certain individuals, including herself, were
being required to carry out additional duties.
© Doc ID POL-0063192; POL-0089835 [Inquiry URN: POL00066713] — Summing Up of HHJ Phipps and
Verdicts at Liverpool Crown Court on 3 and 4 September 2003 and Crown Court Log for T20030498.
" Doc IDs POL-0043980; POL-0087954 [Inquiry URN: POL00047501] and POL-0043979; POL-0087953
[Inquiry URN: POL00047500] — Witness Statement of Kathryn Rosenthal, dated 11 March 2003. Doc ID POL-
0043993; POL-0087974 [Inquiry URN: POL00047514] — Witness Statement of Kathryn Rosenthal, dated 2
June 2003. Doc ID POL-0043999; POL-0087984 [Inquiry URN: POL00047520] — Witness Statement of
Kathryn Rosenthal, dated 22 July 2003. The full list of served witness statements (Doc ID POL-0043983; POL-
0087956 [Inquiry URN: POL00047504}) and exhibits (POL-0043981; POL-0087955) are within the papers but
not the actual documents.
® Doc IDs POL-0087959 and POL-0043986; POL-0087958 [Inquiry URN: POL00047507] — Witness
Statement of Steve Bradshaw, dated 3 March 2003.
' Doc ID POL-0044008; POL-0088002 [Inquiry URN: POL00047529] —Attendance Note of Trial at Liverpool
Crown Court, dated 7 October 2003
POL00119834
POL00119834
e) The day before her disciplinary interview in July 2002, she had received a letter
setting out all the mistakes in her name. Mrs Brennan had noticed that some of
the mistakes attributed to her were in fact recorded under the name of Linda
Buchanan, a fellow counter clerk at Huyton branch.
f) During her evidence, she produced a bundle of her bank statements to show
that throughout the relevant period her accounts were in credit. She told the jury
that, “J wish I could say how the discrepancies arose. I couldn’t believe it
when I heard about these matters”. She denied stealing any of the money.
Human Impact Evidence at the Inquiry
15. Lisa Brennan submitted written evidence to the Inquiry in the form of a signed witness
statement, dated 14 January 2022." In summary she stated as follows:
a) Her life was going well until everything fell apart in 2002 (para. 7).
b) She worked as a counter clerk at Childwell Valley between the ages of 16 and
21, when she moved to work for the Crown Post Office (paras. 9 to 10). By
1995 she was working at Huyton Post Office as a counter clerk (para. 11). Her
intention was to remain there until her retirement, and in doing so she had won
awards and earnt bonuses. She was happy with her job (paras. 12 to 14).
c) The Horizon system was installed between 1999 and 2001, without her being
given any training from the Post Office (para. 15).
d) The branch employed approximately 10 members of staff. Another employee
shared the same initials as her: “LB”. The staff would make mistakes but there
was never an expectation that the shortfall needed to be repaid (paras. 17 to
19).
e) She recounted that an audit was undertaken on 2 June 2002, that a shortfall of
£3,000.00 had been identified and she was later interviewed without legal
representation. The interview “felt like an eternity. I was so intimidated and the
™ First Written Witness Statement of Lisa Margaret Brennan, dated 14 January 2022 (15 pages):
hitps:/ fi 2/ WITNO1710100%20-
%20Lisa°
POL00119834
POL00119834
experience was awful. They were insulting throughout and made
unprofessional comments about my weight and my hair. This was horrible. I
felt like I was in a no-win situation” (paras. 21 to 25).
f) After the interview she was suspended and told to leave the branch. Her
contract with the Post Office was later terminated (para. 26).
g) She explained how she pleaded not guilty and her case proceeded to a trial at
Liverpool Crown Court. She maintained her not guilty plea as she “had done
nothing wrong, so why would I plead anything different” (paras. 33 to 40).
h) Whilst waiting for the jury’s verdict, she had to say goodbye to her daughter.
“She went to school rather than coming with me. She knew there was a chance
that I might not be coming home. I was very open with her. I told her that if I
was sent to prison, I was never coming home. I could not cope with that and I
would end my life. It was heart breaking to have to have such a conversation
and to say goodbye. ... it was unbearable. She was only 6” (paras. 42 to 44).
i) She was in “soral shock” after being convicted (para. 47). She felt “numb”
about being made subject to a suspended sentence” and “couldn't believe that
I had been convicted of an offence that I did not commit (para. 52 to 54).
j) It was said that “throughout my career, I had shown nothing but loyalty, hard-
work, and dedication to my Post Office branch, and in return I was branded a
criminal. I was so upset and ashamed (paras. 55 and 56).
k) Without any income she became bankrupt, homeless and could not obtain a
bank account. She was eventually given a council flat. Her financial
predicament resulted in her selling jewellery and rely upon assistance from the
Salvation Army (paras. 83 to 90 and 123 to 125). She described how, “the
whole situation with the Post Office has had a significant impact on my
well-being and self confidence and has caused myself and my family so
much hurt over the years” (para. 153).
'S Transcript of 15 February 2022, at pages 39 to 67 (PDF):
https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-02/POH%2015%20February’
)2022.pdf
POL00119834
POL00119834
16. She provided oral evidence to the Inquiry on 22 February 2022.'° The majority of her
evidence repeated the content of her witness statement as set out at para. 16(a)-(x) above.
17. In addition, Mrs Brennan raised the following points:
a) In relation to being interviewed under caution, she stated that she was allowed
to take a friend in with her, Maureen, “who just sat with me because we didn’t
have a clue what was going on. It was frightening” (page 47, lines I to 5).
b) That she was not offered the opportunity to consult with a lawyer in advance of
the interview under caution (page 47, lines 6 to 7).
c) The interview itself was described as, “horrible”. With the interviewers being,
“quite derogatory” in the way they spoke to her (i.e., “Got a car, have you? ...
Got a car, oh, look at the earnings you’ve got in. Bit of a big girl, do you like
going out for meals? Have you got lots of money” (page 47, lines 11 to 23).
d) Mrs Brennan told the Inquiry that HHJ Phipps appeared “gobsmacked” by the
jury’s verdict and the court clerk also began to cry. She believed that was the
reason for the judge replying to the costs and compensation applications in the
following way, “Stick a penny on a stamp” (page 51, lines 15 to 25, to page
53, lines I to 7).
e) Mrs Brennan described the whole experience as “scandalous” and finished by
saying that in the interview room it had been suggested to her that, “/r’s only
you, nobody else is making these mistakes, it’s only you”. But that ultimately it
wasn’t just her. (page 64, line 25, to page 65, lines I to 11).
'S Transcript of 15 February 2022, at pages 39 to 67 (PDF):
hitps://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.or i fi
12/POH%2015%20February?
POL00119834
POL00119834
CLI
Investigation
Q.121. Who was responsible Stephen Bradshaw POL-0043805;
for conducting the
POL-0087911
conduct a thorough
investigation; (b) their duty to
pursue all reasonable lines of
enquiry; and (c) their duty of
disclosure? Were these
adequate?
investigation? [Inquiry URN:
POL00047326]
Q. 124. What (if any) advice or I In a pre-charge advice dated 12 July 2002, Teresa I POL-0043810;
guidance did they receive Berridge (POL lawyer) stated that before she could I POL-0087918
regarding (a) their duty to “properly advise on the sufficiency of evidence and I [Inquiry URN:
likely prospect of conviction” she wished to have
further information on:
1. The results of pension and allowances checks.
2. How it was known that Ms Brennan had not
made mistakes in her other work, what checks
had been made?
3. How the investigator could rule out the
involvement of other staff members.
4. How many others had access to her till?
The security arrangements in respect of the till
at the branch.
6. Evidence of stealing or covering up of
shortages, whether there is evidence to show
uw
she was acting dishonestly rather than
incompetently.
7. Any financial checks undertaken into Ms
Brennan.
8. How Ms_ Brennan’s accounting record
compared to her colleagues.
9. Whether she had received any warnings or
extra training on accounting irregularities, and
10. The average level of P&A discrepancies for
other counter clerks at the branch.
The papers were returned awaiting a response from
the investigator. She did not expressly spell out the
duties of the investigator or the need to consider
disclosure, but an unused schedule and a Disclosure
Officer’s Report were prepared in this case.
POL00047331]
POL-0043814;
POL-0087925
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047335]
Q.125. What factors influenced
the scope of enquiries
undertaken?
As per Q.124, the need to ensure that there was
sufficient evidence and consideration of the prospect
of conviction was clearly a factor in the pre-charge
advice.
11
POL00119834
POL00119834
Q.126. What (if any) role did
financial or reputational
considerations play?
There is no material available which suggests that
financial or reputational considerations played any role
in terms of the scope of enquiries undertaken.
Q.127. Who was responsible
for supervising or reviewing
the conduct of this
investigation?
It is not known who within the POL Investigation
Team supervised or reviewed the investigation,
however it is clear that the reviewing lawyer reviewed
the case when she provided advice.
There is no charging memo or post charge advice in
the papers, so it is not known what legal
considerations were raised after 12 July 2002.
POL-0043984;
POL-0087957
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047505]
Q.129. To what extent (if at
all) was independent oversight
exercised in relation to the
conduct of these criminal
investigations? By whom was
it exercised and was it
External solicitors, Messrs Silverbeck Rymer
Solicitors, were instructed to deal with the
Magistrates’ Court proceedings. They in turn
instructed counsel to cover the Crown Court hearings
and trial. The nature and extent of any independent
advice they provided is not known from the available
adequate?
papers.
Charging
Q.130. Who made the
charging decision?
Not known from the available papers, although Teresa
Berridge provided a pre-charge advice to the
investigator on 12 July 2002.
Q.133. What policies,
guidance or principles did
they apply when making
charging
decisions? Were they suitable
and applied appropriately?
Not known as there is no charging memo or advice in
the reviewed papers. The internal memo of 12 July
2002 from Teresa Berridge refers to, “sufficiency of
evidence and likely prospect of conviction”
Q.134. What (if any) legal
advice did they receive
concerning the
appropriateness of bringing
charges in individual cases?
Not known as there is no charging memo or legal
advice in the reviewed papers.
Q.135. What (if any) action
did they take upon receipt of
such advice?
Ms Brennan was charged with theft (circa. £22,000).
A summons would have been obtained leading to the
eventual 32 counts that featured on the preferred
indictment at Liverpool Crown Court.
POL-0043806;
POL-0087912
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047327]
Q.136. Was an offence of
theft charged? If so, was there
sufficient evidence to support
it? Did the charge place
improper pressure on the D?
Was that intended?
Yes (32 separate offences).
As the Court of Appeal noted in Hamilton and Others
at para. 289: “there was no evidence to corroborate
the Horizon evidence. The issue at trial was
dishonesty but there was insufficient proof of an
appropriation”.
Q.137. Who was responsible
for supervising or reviewing
It is not known from the available papers who (if
anyone) within the POL supervised or reviewed the
12
POL00119834
POL00119834
the charging decision?
charging decision, and nor is the charging memo within
the papers.
Independent solicitors were instructed to prosecute the
matter in the Magistrates’ Court: Messrs Silverbeck
Rymer Solicitors of Liverpool.
Independent counsel was instructed to prosecute the
trial. Similarly, Had counsel considered the charging
decision to be wrong or inappropriate, they would have
been bound to advise as such.
POL-0088044
Q.139. To what extent (if at
all) was independent oversight
exercised in relation to
charging decisions? By whom
was it exercised and was it
adequate?
External solicitors were instructed as prosecuting
agents: Messrs Silverbeck Rymer Solicitors. They in
turn instructed independent counsel to prosecute the
case in the Crown Court.
Prosecution
Q140. Who was responsible
for conducting the
prosecution?
Teresa Berridge (Senior Lawyer).
On or around 20 November 2002, Silverbeck Rymer
Solicitors based in Liverpool were instructed to act as
external agents in advance of the first appearance at
Liverpool Magistrates’ Court.
The Crown Court Log refers to independent counsel
Miss Zillah Williams conducting the trial at Liverpool
Crown Court.
POL-0043809;
POL-0087917
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047330]
POL-00438 10;
POL-0087918
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047331]
POL-0043959;
POL-0087946
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047480]
POL-0063193;
POL-0089836
[Inquiry URN:
POL00066714]
Q.143. What legal advice did
they receive concerning the
appropriateness of pursuing
private prosecutions in
individual cases?
Not known as there is no charging memo or legal
advice in the reviewed papers.
Q.144. What action did they
take upon receipt of such
advice?
It is known that Ms Brennan was charged and
arraigned on a 32 count indictment in the Crown Court.
Q.146. Who was responsible
for supervising or reviewing
the conduct of the
prosecution?
It is not known from the available papers who (if
anyone) within POL supervised or reviewed the
conduct of the prosecution. External solicitors were
however instructed as prosecuting agents together with
13
POL00119834
POL00119834
independent counsel. Independent counsel has a
continuing duty to advise as to the appropriateness of
proceeding with a case.
Q.148. How (if at all) was
supervision of private
prosecutions exercised?
Not known from the available papers, other than
external lawyers were instructed.
Q.149. To what extent (if at
all) was independent oversight
exercised in relation to the
conduct of prosecutions?
External solicitors, Messrs Silverbeck Rymer
Solicitors, were instructed to prosecute the court
proceedings and they in turn instructed independent
counsel to deal with the Crown Court proceedings.
Disclosure
Q150. Who was responsible
for making disclosure
decisions?
Steve Bradshaw is named as the Disclosure Officer on
the blank Disclosure Officer’s Report and Sensitive
Schedule.
The disclosure decisions were likely made by the
reviewing lawyer, Ms Berridge.
POL-0043970;
POL-0087949
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047491]
POL-0043971;
POL-0087950
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047492]
Q.153. What legal advice did
they receive concerning duties
of disclosure?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.154. What action did they
take upon receipt of such
advice?
A Disclosure Officer’s Report, Sensitive Schedule
(containing one item) and Non-Sensitive Schedules
(including 12 items) were all prepared in this case.
POL-0043970;
POL-0087949
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047491]
POL-0043971;
POL-0087950
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047492]
POL-0043996;
POL-0087975
[Inquiry URN:
POL00047517]
Q.155. What factors
influenced the scope of
disclosure?
Not known from the available papers.
Q.156. What (if any) role did
financial or reputational
considerations play?
Not known. There is no material in the papers now
available to suggest that financial or reputational
considerations played any role in terms of the scope of
disclosure.
14
POL00119834
POL00119834
Q.157. Were the decisions
which they took in relation to
disclosure appropriate?
See the judgment of the CACD in Hamilton & Ors.
Negotiation and Acceptance of Pleas
Q158. Who was responsible for
decision-making re: negotiation
and acceptance of pleas?
Not applicable.
Q.159, What policies, guidance
or principles did they apply
when making their decisions?
Were they suitable and applied
appropriately?
Not applicable.
Q.160. In what circumstances I Not applicable.
and upon what conditions were
charges not pursued? Were
these appropriate?
Q.161. In what circumstances Not applicable.
and upon what conditions were
pleas accepted? Were these
appropriate?