POL00125209
POL00125209
From: Matthews, Gavin:
Sent: Fri 04/07/2014 12:19:11 PM (UTC)
To: baltmar_
Subject: FW: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Attachment: COMMENTS ON BAQC DRAFT POLICY.pdf
Brian
I hope all is well with you and you are enjoying the sunshine.
Please find attached and below an email from Jarnail attaching CK comments on the draft prosecution policy.
I'm not sure of the best way forward. I suspect if you could respond to CK's comments that would be a good start. If
there are differences of approach we could pick them up in a telephone conference later on.
Kind regards
Gavin
Gavin Matthews
Partner
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Sent: 01 July 2014 10:22
To: Matthews, Gavin
Cc: Chris Aujard; Jessica Madron
Subject: RE: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Gavin
Please find attached CK counsel Simon Clarkes comments and suggested amendments in relation to the
BAQC draft Prosecution Policy.
Kind regards,
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
CD) 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
©
©
Jarnail.a.singh}
@postofficenews
® Post Office stories
®
From: Jarnail Singh
Sent: 02 June 2014 11:
To: Matthews, Gavin (__ RO
Cc: Chris Aujard; Jessica Madron
Subject: FW: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Gavin
I have received the draft prosecution policy drafted by BAQC.
POL00125209
POL00125209
It appears to give POL complete discretion as to how proceed in any prosecution case. However it also appears to be
little vague for that reason. It contains less detail then the draft prepared by CK. May I suggest I forward it to CK for
their views as they will ultimately be advising and prosecuting in accordance with the POL prosecution policy .
Regards
Jarnail.
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
Jarnail.a.singh
GRO ]
Post Office stories
@postofficenews
©O®QOO®
POL00125209
POL00125209
From: Matthews, Gavi
Sent: 23 May 2014 14:52
To: Jarnail Singh
Cc: Chris Aujard
Subject: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Jarnail
Please find attached Brian Altman QC's first draft prosecution policy for your review.
I set out below his comments to me which need some thought and input from POL.
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. Section 5 (based inevitably on the Beachcroft document which Jarnail tells us was written on
instructions) I have simplified.
5. 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
Can I suggest that once you have reviewed it we meet up to go through any comments you have before
finalising the document.
POL00125209
POL00125209
Kind regards
Gavin
Gavin Matthews
Partner
for and on behal
of Bond Dickinson LLP
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
rents is confidential a
ire not jam
copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, public
‘The information in this e-mail and any
access this e-mail and
rivileged and protected by k
tachments. If yor
3r copying of this c
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission, Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damag
any attach
which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry
your own virus checks before ope
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it
ered
ner to refer to a member of
This email is sent for a
.d on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in En,
office is St Ann’s Wharf, 112 Quayside, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE 3DX, where a
the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT reg
1d and Wales under number OC317661. Our regi
inspection
of membe
ration number is GB1233
We use the term pa
ames is open to
3627,
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
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.