POL00125197
POL00125197
From:
Sent: Fri 30/05/2014 3:29:09 PM (UTC)
To: Matthews, Gavinf. GR .
Subject: RE: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.F1D20472253]
Goo. Thanks.
From: Matthews, Gavin [-
Sent: 30 May 2014 16:28
To: Brian Altman
Subject: RE: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Yes it read very well I thought and was just what they were looking for.
G
From: Brian Altman {
Sent: 30 May 2014 16:
To: Matthews, Gavin
Subject: RE: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
OK thanks.
Did it read alright from your point of view?
I'm out of London for the next couple of weeks so forgive any slowness in response.
Have a good weekend too.
Brian
From: Matthews, Gavin I
Sent: 30 May 2014 16:25
To: Brian Altman
Subject: RE: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Hi Brian
Hope all is well with you
I sent the document to POL but to date have not received feedback — often a good sign!
I will follow up next Monday and let you know.
Have a great weekend
Gavin
From: Brian Altman £. GRO.
Sent: 30 May 2014 12:46
To: Matthews, Gavin
Subject: RE: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Gavin
I thought I might touch base with you as I haven't heard from you - not that I'm rushing you. Just curious.
Brian
From: Matthews, Gavin
POL00125197
POL00125197
Sent: 20 May 2014 16:50
To: Brian Altman
Subject: RE: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Thanks Brian. I will review it this evening.
Kind regards
Gavin
From: Brian Altman }.
Sent: 20 May 2014 15:45
To: Matthews, Gavin
Subject: RE: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Dear Gavin
I am attaching my first draft.
Please note the following:
1.
In light of our discussions with Chris, particularly his perfectly understandable wish for a "real world" rather
than mechanistic, legalistic type policy document, I have (as we discussed some days ago) gone for a far more
(I hope) user-friendly document than that originally drafted by CK. Indeed, it (and the title which I have
readily adopted) takes the emphasis off criminal prosecution and focuses on the means of enforcement which
may (but not inevitably) include prosecution. In my view this fits POL's requirements.
While the Beachcroft example was good I felt it far too wordy and over-inclusive for what is required and it
incorporated too much unnecessary information.
If the policy is to be published then it needs to inform as well as be JR proof. Essentially the attached
describes (1) to whom it applies (2) the underlying need for POL enforcement action (3) the options available
to it (4) when non-criminal action might be deployed (5) the basic principles of criminal enforcement
(incorporating by reference the CPS Code and defining the 2 stage test) (6) when criminal enforcement will be
deployed (7) who makes the decision (8) the recovery of money and (9) review.
In particular:
1.
At para 1.4.1 I hope I have accurately described (and may be permitted to describe) the BIP which Angela and
Chris agreed is designed to identify problems and direct intervention.
At para 4.3 and 7.3 to 7.4 I have written in a very wide ambit of discretion for POL decision-makers but have
emphasised the ‘Option B' factors/approach approved by the Board without being prescriptive about any one
factor and without including any cut-off financial figure (as we all agreed).
At para 4.4 have added in the 'safeguard" I was asked for. I have left it broad enough not to tie POL's hands
about other enforcement options.
Section 5 (based inevitably on the Beachcroft document which Jarnail tells us was written on instructions) I
have simplified.
As for section 8, I have done what I can on current instructions. I have left it deliberately simple. It may be
that the team names are wrong. If so they can easily be corrected.
At para 8.2 I thought that the Head of Security would be more likely to have the power to disagree with the
POLCT senior lawyer than an investigation officer (as was Jarnail's suggestion in the email last week). Again if
this is wrong then it can be changed. Either way the decision tree set out in the Security Team's policy
document (referred to at para 8.4 and footnote 3) and the decision making hierarchy in the text of that
document will require revision according to any new decision tree.
There's bound to be some discussion around its terms and I will of course revise the document if asked to. Maybe you
and Andy would like to cast an eye over it before submitting it?
I do hope it reflects everything we have discussed. Please let me know if you think there is anything I have omitted.
Regards,
POL00125197
POL00125197
Brian
From: Matthews, Gavin
Sent: 14 May 2014 17:
To: Brian Altman
Subject: FW: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Hi Brian
Hope you are well.
Please see below response from Jarnail/Chris
Regards
Gavin
Gavin Matthews
Partner
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson
From: Jarnail Singh §
Sent: 14 May 2014 16:
To: Matthews, Gavin
Cc: Chris Aujard
Subject: RE: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Gavin
Please see in blue below Chris and my reply to BAQC two questions on the POL prosecution policy.
Regards
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
) 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
©
POL00125197
POL00125197
@ Post Office stories
Ss
4 @postofficenews
i)
From: Matthews, Gavin I
Sent: 09 May 2014 13:08
To: Chris Aujard; Jarnail Singh
Subject: POL Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Dear Chris/Jarnail
By way of update, I understand from Brian that he is close to having a first draft of the POL prosecution policy
document.
He does have some further questions which need to be clarified before getting the draft out;
1. What will the hierarchy of POL prosecution decision making be in the future? ie who will be making the final
decision on authorising prosecution — Jarnail or Chris (as GC) or will the role be split between you and if so in
what circumstances? You will recall that we discussed this at our recent conference where it was decided that
it needed to be a lawyer who makes the final decision rather than the head of security. Jarnail will be the
decision maker for POL prosecutions. We recommend that procedure be put in place to enable the
investigation officer to appeal to Chris(GC) in the event he/ she disagrees with Jarnail decision..
2. Secondly, it was suggested at our conference that POL wanted to exclude all other enforcement action before
embarking on considerations of criminal prosecution (which makes sense). The EPP (drafted by Beachcroft)
caters for that under the heading "Actions available outside of Criminal Process". Can you please confirm
whether the passages they have drafted about POL "Informal action", "disciplinary proceedings" and "civil
proceedings" are completely accurate and reflect POL informal, disciplinary and civil action processes. I
assume that Beachcroft drafted this on instructions? If not, can you let me know if POL have other such
options available to them and are willing to adopt them for the purposes of this policy? ? a). These were
drafted on consultations and instructions from POL ..b) However there will be cases which should be
considered for prosecution in which it will be possible to quickly dismiss alternative avenues. We would advise
that a safeguard be put in place to ensure that such cases are not compromised through delay or the
consideration of inappropriate avenues, There will be cases where swift and appropriate action will be
necessary to preserve POL brand, image and reputation e.g. in circumstances in which a counter clerk or Sub
postmaster may have stolen significant sums of money from elderly customers .c) I have been provided with
policy document entitled contract breach.. I have advised this should be amended so as to include mechanism
to quickly identify cases in which ,it would be appropriate to commence investigation with view to potential
prosecution, to avoid such prosecution being compromised.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Gavin
POL00125197
POL00125197
Gavin Matthews
Partner
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
ein
www.bonddickinson.com
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in thi ‘achments is confidential and m
nail and any
yy attachments, If you are not jamail.a.singl
copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, public
jonly is authorised to
ged and protected by law.
¢ notify gavin,matthew:
access this e-mail and
‘oon as possibl
nlawful
\d delete any
or copying of this com
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmis
which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it
and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered
en to inspection. We use the
B123393627.
This email is sent for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in En;
office is St Ann's Wharf, 112 Quayside, Neweastle Upon Tyne, NEL 3DX, where a list of members
the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is ¢
na
rm partner to refer to a member of
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
peereeeereeeececeeeecececeeeceeeeccececccccccccccetcceccceccecccertcetd
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.