POL00125211
POL00125211
From:
Sent:
To: Brian Altman{
Subject: RE: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Hi Brian
I suspect (though I do not know) that Chris/Angela and John have not inputted into the document which will have come
exclusively from CK. I also doubt that Jarnail explained to them about Chris' views.
I think that Chris will be happy for you to consider further changes based on CK's comments provided that the policy
doesn't go back to being mechanistic (1 don't see a risk of this).
My view is that to ensure we get sign off from everyone, once we get your comments and amends we have a final
conference with you and all the relevant people at POL (this can include CK). Otherwise I don't think Chris will give it
much thought.
Do you agree?
Kind regards
Gavin
Gavin Matthews
Partner
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Office:
Sent: 04 July 2014 17:02
To: Matthews, Gavin
Subject: RE: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Don't worry. It's an occupational hazard!
I've just taken a few minutes to skip through the email and attachment out of curiosity. I see that the comments are
all CK's and have been sent up the line by Jarnail, though Chris is copied in.
Bearing in mind I effectively trashed CK's "mechanistic" effort (which I had been comfortable with) given our con with
Chris I am slightly concerned about any push back from the "real world" version I deliberately drafted. Also lam
unclear if CK were privy to Chris's views and have therefore been piqued by the version I've produced in place of
theirs.
POL00125211
POL00125211
I thought I'd get this preliminary email out to you asap as I think I/we will need some steer. Is Chris do you think
happy for me to consider and if need be insert further changes based on CK's comments?
Has there been any input to document that you know about from Chris or Angela who attended our meeting at More
Place, or for that matter from John (HoS)?
Regards
Brian
From: Matthews, Gavin I
Sent: 04 July 2014 15:33
To: Brian Altman
Subject: RE: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Brian
Sorry to hear that. I will find out and let you know.
Have a great weekend.
Regards
Gavin
Gavin Matthews
Partner
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brian Altman}
Sent: 04 July 2014 13:35
To: Matthews, Gavin
Subject: RE: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Gavin
Thanks.
I wish I could be enjoying the sunshine but I'm not! I will need some time on this I am afraid as I am embarking on a
heavy duty case on Monday and am spending all my time on this right now and may be doing so for the next 2 weeks
or so. That said, I'll get to this as soon as I can.
What kind of turnaround does POL want on this?
Brian
POL00125211
POL00125211
From: Matthews, Gavin I”
Sent: 04 July 2014 13:19
To: Brian Altman
Subject: FW: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
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
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Jarnail Singh I
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
® 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
POL00125211
POL00125211
Jarnail.a.singI
Post Office stories
® @postofficenews
From: Jarnail Singh
Sent: 02 June 2014 11:39
To: Matthews, Gavin {. SRO i
Cc: Chris Aujard; Jessica Madron
Subject: FW: Draft Prosecution Policy [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Gavin
I have received the draft prosecution policy drafted by BAQC.
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.singI
Post Office stories
@postofficenews
©OB8®OO®
POL00125211
POL00125211
From: Matthews, Gavin !
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.
POL00125211
POL00125211
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?
‘The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential a
access this e-mail and
ly privileged and protected by k “Jonly is authorised to
ni pl
n or copying of this c
soon as possible and delete any
be unlawful
hments. If you are not jam
copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, public
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before t
which may be caused by softwa
viruses and you should carry out 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 and 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 regi
\d and Wales under number OC317661. Our regis
of members’ names is open to inspection
tration number is GB123393627.
We use the term pa
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.