POL00141689
POL00141689
Message
From: Jarnail Singh [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH
67E9-4ECA-94F2-0057 16658847 @C72A47.ingest.local]
on Jarnail Singh <IMCEAEX-
behalf _O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH
of 67E9-4ECA-94F2-005716658847 @C72A47.ingest.local> [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH
67E9-4ECA-94F2-005716658847 @C72A47 ingest.local]
Sent: 08 Apr 2014 08:55:40
To: ‘Parsons, Andrew! Rodric William: J; Jonny Gribben
Subject K Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue [BD-4A.FID20472253] 41188
Dear All
Having read Counsel Bowyers advice on disclosure of the investigation officers report In my view the business need to
take the view not disclose to such documents at all.
Regards
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
& 148 Old Street, LONDON, ECIV 9HQ
ie @postofficenews
From: Harry Bowyer } GRO.
Sent: 08 April 2014 0:
To: andrew.parsons. ni
Cc: Andrew Bolc; Jarnail Singh; Simon Clarke
Subject: RE: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue [BD-4A.FID20472253] 41188
Andy,
lam afraid that it was me who started this hare running - more out of caution than trying to be
difficult. If we are to be serving these documents then it should be an informed decision of our
mutual client to do so as there may well be consequences.
Please forgive me if I appear to be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs in the following
paragraphs but I will be grateful for the same when you teach me civil disclosure!
The documents that we are concerned with are the officers’ reports. These are prepared at a very
early stage of a prosecution and are intended to set out the facts and background of a case in order
POL-0143066
POL00141689
POL00141689
that a decision to prosecute might be made. This is necessarily at a stage when the investigation is far
from complete and will often contain conjecture and opinion that will subsequently be proved wrong
or inflammatory. I was reviewing a case yesterday where the officer was wondering whether the
suspect was taking the fall for her daughter when the daughter was, in his view, more than likely to
be involved.
They will contain criticism by the officer of POL procedures and suggestions for putting them right -
whether these are acted upon history seldom relates.
They also contain, in many cases, operational material that shows how these cases are detected and
the investigational resources that are available to POL. This is not something that should be released
into the public domain lightly - especially where the audit is intelligence led.
There are certain of these documents where information is revealed, no relevant to the case, which
may be commercially sensitive or embarrassing to our client. The case of Walters M006 has an
example where the officer raises the concern that there were no checks made on spoiled postage slips
to see if they were bogus or not. We do not know whether this has been fixed or even applies today.
The final area of concern is that a substantial minority of these applications contain complaints about
the behaviour of our investigators. These documents give the telephone numbers and other contact
details of the officers who compile the reports which presumably may well find their way into the
hands of those who have a long held animus against them. In a world governed by the Data
Protection Act we should think extremely carefully before sending documents out unredacted even
to this extent.
These documents are seldom, if ever disclosed to the defence as they are not the primary evidence
and are a prosecution working tool. If they contain information that the defence should have we
usually serve it in some other way - either by statement, documentary exhibit or a disclosure note
which will say that, “Post Office Limited are aware that...... ”
This information is and documentation is, in the main, POL’s. Where it is POL’s documentation and
POL’s information there is nothing to prevent its disclosure by POL (subject to the above) even where
we have made the decision not to disclose the document in the criminal proceedings. This is why we
have asked for clarification as to what POL wishes to do and the options are: 1) Disclose unredacted,
2) Disclose redacted copies or 3) Do not disclose.
We need a consistent approach or people will notice that we are serving them in some cases and not
in others.
If Ican be of any further help please let me know
Harry
Harry Bowyer
POL-0143066
POL00141689
POL00141689
From: Andrew Bolc
Sent: 07 April 2014 17:18
To: Harry Bowyer
Subject: FW: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue [BD-4A.FID20472253]
One for you.
cheers
Andrew Bolc
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 07 April 2014 17:16
To: Andrew Bolc
Cc: Jarnail Singh; Rodric Williams; Jonny Gribben
Subject: RE: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Andrew
Jamail has forwarded your email below to me
lll have to pick up this point with others at POL before coming back with an answer. However, before I do, one point of
clarification. From a criminal law perspective, what are the consequences of disclosing a document that had previously
been withheld in a prosecution on the grounds that it is a prosecution working document?
Obviously, if the document contains contentious information then disclosure of the document is a commercial decision for
POL. From a civil perspective, we are of course being cautious around disclosure of legally privileged material (however,
my initial view is that the document referred to below in the case of Waiters would probably not meet the test for privilege
in a civil case). However, I just want to check if there are any criminal law consequences before reverting to POL.
(Jarnail ~ hope its ok going straight back to Andrew on this one — shout if not)
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Bond Dickinson:
POL-0143066
POL00141689
POL00141689
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Jarnail Singh (
Sent: 07 April 2014 13:55
To: Rodric Williams; Jonny Gribben; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: FW: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue
Rodric, Jonny, Andy
Please see email from CK with regards to disclosure of documents containing sensitive information such as
Investigation reports in mediation responses. CK saya policy decision is required from POL for consistent of
approach to these responses.
CK is of the view POL seem to have 3 options namely
i) Do not disclose such documents at all
ii) Disclose them in a redacted form
iii} Disclose them in their entirety, accepting any consequences that follow.
May I have your views and POL preferred option from above and how CK is instructed on the sensitive
information disclosure in their mediation responses..
Regards
Jarnail.
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
® 148 Old Street, LONDON, ECIV 9HQ
® Postline
® Mobe
@) Jomail.a.singh
@ Post Office storie
& @postofficenews
From: Andrew Bolc
Sent: 07 April 2014 13:20
To: Jarnail Singh
Subject: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue
Dear Jarnail,
Harry has asked that I raise this issue with you, which has come to light whilst we have been
preparing our proposed amendments to the POL Mediation Responses.
POL-0143066
POL00141689
POL00141689
It relates to the disclosure of certain documents as part of the POL Mediation Response. At the end
of each response is a heading entitled “Documents being provided to Second Sight.” We have
noticed that some of these documents contain sensitive material which it may be considered is
inappropriate to disclose. Typically the problem arises, but is not exclusive to, the investigating
officer's original report into the case.
By way of example, I attach our concerns raised by Counsel in relation to a case we are currently
looking at; M006 (Terrence Walters). It relates to the investigator’s report
“As you know I have worries about these documents being disclosed let alone without being redacted. This
document would not be disclosed in a criminal prosecution as it is a prosecution working document. In this
case, along with disclosing the investigating officer’s mobile phone number, landline and other items of personal
data which drive a coach and horses through the Data Protection Act, the document discloses the officer’s
opinion as to how cases of spoilt postage slips should be dealt with in the future and the fact (which is irrelevant
to this case but I would imagine that POL do not want in the public domain) that there was, at the time of this
case, no attempt to reconcile spoilt postage claim forms to check whether they were bogus or not.”
A similar issue arose last week with regard to M046 (Siobhan Sayer). Counsel is of the view that a
policy decision needs to be taken by POL to confirm how it intends to handle such documents
containing sensitive information, so that there is a uniformity of approach to these responses.
It would seem the 3 options are
i) Do not disclose such documents at all
ii) Disclose them in a redacted form
iii) Disclose them in their entirety, accepting any consequences that follow.
Please could we be provided with instructions as to which of these options you would prefer us to
adopt.
Regards
Andrew Bolc
andrew. bole{
CartwrightKing
ee
Birmingham I Derby I LeicesterI London I Neweastle I Nottingham I Sheffield
Permanent House, 31 Horsefair Street, Leicester, LE1 5BU
"We have a new website"
www .cartwrightking.co.uk
ipell
oOo
POL-0143066
POL00141689
POL00141689
ve received
egulation
Save a tree - please only print emails that you must
*
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.
JOH SEIU IOUS IO IOI D IOI SIDI ADDIS SIDI ISI IDI AISA IIIA
nat! Do you need £
GRO
‘of altacunente
Authority.
pefeeerrnrenrensereererererrgerreererrsenterserrtrererrrrrererertrt tery
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.
POL-0143066