POL00122170
POL00122170
From: Andy Hayward[IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29
“CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=ANDY+2EHAYWARDFDFO79BE-E651-417F-B3AB-
257F7B463F5E@C72A47 ingest local]
Sent: Mon 11/03/2013 AM (UTC)
To:
Subject: RE: New Draft Criminal Enforcement & Prosecution Policy EPP
John,
Will do.
Helen,
Can we discuss and collate additional through yourself as before please.
Thanks,
Andy
Andy Hayward I Senior Security Programme Manager
@ Midway House 1 Elliott Way
~ Birmingham B6 7AP.
a
©)
@ ost office.security GRO
From: John M Scott
Sent: 11 March 2013 09:11
To: Andy Hayward
Cc: Rob King; Keith Gilchrist; Darrell Kennedy; Helen Dickinson; Dave Posnett; Andrew Daley
Subject: FW: New Draft Criminal Enforcement & Prosecution Policy EPP
Andy & et al.
Please find the latest draft of the EPP with some of the amendments made from last time. I notice that they’ve not
included all the areas raised (i.e. confiscation initiation before decision to prosecute).
Can you please review the document and feedback any comments by Friday of this week — through one person
please. We need to challenge where appropriate.
POL00122170
POL00122170
Cheers.
John.
From: Hugh Flemington
Sent: 05 March 2013 18:00
To: John M Scott; Jarnail A Singh; Susan Crichton; Alwen Lyons
Subject: New Draft Criminal Enforcement & Prosecution Policy EPP
Redraft attached following our last meeting on it.
Have taken on board comments from John’s team plus those made at the meeting. Some further explanation of
changes below:
1. Deterrence — there was previous reference in the "focussed" section of the EPP but has been amended.
2. Cover criminal activity against POL — the policy does cover any type of criminal activity against POL which it then
decides to prosecute.
3. Can the investigation be handed over to the Police? — This is possible and is discussed in the Internal Protocol. A
couple of additions to this EPP made to also reflect this.
4. Human Rights — in investigating and prosecuting POL is exercising what would generally be considered a public
function. Whilst it may not strictly be required to comply with the Human Rights Act (see previous advice from
Stephen Hocking), previous criticism around the way in which POL is perceived to manage enforcement and
prosecution (and questions in Parliament) has driven this exercise of looking at systems/ procedures and transparency
and Beachcrofts therefore suggest the spirit of Art 6 HRA (i.e. due process/ fair trial) should be followed so as to avoid
future criticism (and indeed prevent CPS terminating a private prosecution as they are entitled to do). In order to
comply with the spirit of the HRA, having a clear and transparent policy and internal protocol is the first step. The next
step is of course following it and of course following other requirements on prosecution such as CPIA disclosure, PACE
etc. These Acts/ Regs are referenced in the EPP.
5. Departure from Policy — Amended in line with discussions.
Any more comments plse or does everyone now agree with this draft?
Kind regards
hugh
Hugh Flemington I Head of Legal
@ 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
(=) Post Office stories
POL00122170
POL00122170
®© @postofficenews