Searchable transcripts of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry hearings
  • Transcripts
  • Evidence list
Searchable transcripts of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry hearings
  • Evidence
  • POL00147831 - Email from Rodric Williams to Chris Aujard, David Oliver, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd re POL’s Legal Files: Draft Email to SS for Comment Please

POL00147831 - Email from Rodric Williams to Chris Aujard, David Oliver, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd re POL’s Legal Files: Draft Email to SS for Comment Please

Evidence on official site

POL00147831
POL00147831

From: Rodric Williamsf”
Sent:
To:
andrew. parsonst
Ce: Belinda Crowe’
Subject: RE: POL's legal files: DRAFT EMAIL TO SS FOR COMMENT PLEASE

Chris — I think that reads well, and have added my (very minor) amends in red.

One thought — although your response (quite properly) focuses on SS’s work on individual cases, they have said they
want the legal files for their Thematic Report. The same points can still be made about their professed need to see
the files and the resource that will involve, it’s just a matter of:

a. tweaking your email to address that point now; or
b. (my preferred option) leave it for SS to raise, which would keep the focus of your email on SS getting
on with the individual cases on hand.

Please let me know if you would like to have a go at capturing the Thematic Report, or otherwise discuss.

Kind regards, Rod

From: Chris Aujard

Sent: 25 March 2014 10:55
To: David Oliver1; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Andrew.Parsonsi = = GRO}
Cc: Belinda Crowe

Subject: POL's legal files: DRAFT EMAIL TO SS FOR COMMENT PLEASE

Dear lan and Ron

I note that you have both made requests, through different channels, for access to POL's legal files. Many apologies
for the delay in getting back to you but I thought it important to take the time to consider your request properly
before setting out my thoughts in writing.

For me the starting point in considering your request is to understand why you feel you need access to this
information. The processes established by the Working Group are fairly clear: upon receipt of a CQR POL produces a
report (along with relevant supporting documentation) which is then sent to you for the purpose, inter alia, of
providing a basis upon which you can prepare a corresponding report for the Working Group. To the extent that you
reasonably feel there are ambiguities or omissions in the POL report you have the option of either commenting on
this matter in your report (to the extent it is not material), or (to the extent that it is material) requesting, via
appropriate channels (and at all times copying in Angela), clarification of issues raised. The point here is that such
requests are specific and focussed on matters directly relevant to the report produced by POL; they should therefore
be made after receipt of the POL reports, not before they are written, not be overly general in nature, and certainly
not so broad as to require the release of an entire class of document, e.g. an entire legal file. Put another way, it
seems to me that the Working Group has not asked you to conduct a trawl of the primary source documentation and
records maintained by POL to ascertain what it relevant, and what is not. Apart from the need to maintain an orderly
and workable process, there are it seems to me very good reasons to ensure that we maintain discipline and focus on
the cases at hand.

The current situation contrasts quite markedly to that which prevailed in the period prior to the release of your
POL00147831
POL00147831

interim report, when you were undertaking what was essentially an investigatory exercise. Given your role then, I can
entirely understand why generic information was provided to you (including certain privileged information) as it no
doubt formed the factual basis by reference to which you wrote your report. However, the focus of your work now is
on the mediation scheme, where your role is significantly different from that which you occupied in respect of the
interim report, and as such I cannot see any compelling rationale for disclosure. Indeed, to retrieve files, documents
and emails, review them and redact information which is commercially confidential, privileged or personal would
involve considerable time and resource, which I would find difficult to justify without a clear need.

I would also take this opportunity to remind you of the terms of the attached undertaking which require Second Sight
to not disclose any legally privileged information - this includes making reference to that information in any report it
produces. Please do feel free to call if you want to discuss the above.

Kind Regards

Chris

Chris Aujard I General Counsel

5" Floor, Bunhill Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ

chris .aujardé

Previous Next

© Crown Copyright, used under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Converted by Matthew Somerville.