POL00149689
POL00149689
From: Hocking, Stepher
Sent:
To:
Ce:
_§ Donnelly, Aimee’
Subject: RE: Strictly Private & Confidential - Subject to Legal Privilege
Dear Chris/all
Further to our telecom this morning, as promised I have jotted down my thoughts below against each of the possible
action points. Overall and subject to those thoughts I feel the risk of a successful JR is very low.
e = Making it clear that Post Office will deal with criminal cases last (they take longer because of the volume of
documentation and the legal clearance is more complicated and dealing with them in the bulk of other
investigations slows down progress on other cases) and that we would only mediate in these cases in exceptional
circumstances, believing that the correct next step for any of these applicants would be the Criminal Courts.
I think it is reasonable and defensible to state that considering a complaint and especially mediating is very
difficult is not impossible while a (potential) application to the criminal courts is pending. What is POL supposed
to make of the conviction in any complaint proceeding? It is and may remain a good conviction: are we supposed
to ignore it or guess the outcome of any application? It does need to be resolved before a complaint can sensibly
be engaged with. I would like us also to adopt a general principle of trying to deal with the "quicker" cases first.
This is a reasonable approach as it closes as many files as possible as quickly as possible, and would also support
putting the criminal cases to the back.
The policy must be communicated in such a way that we are not suggesting we will not look at these cases for fear
of reopening a criminal case. Obviously, if we have evidence that might suggest a conviction was unsafe, we
would share it at once. The point we have to get across is that having shared it, the next step ought to be to
resolve the criminal position which we cannot do
e@ Moving Second Sight to a fixed fee structure with a clear work-plan (potentially with incentives to increase the
speed of work) and regular quality and delivery review meetings — potentially saving several hundred thousand
pounds depending on the fee level agreed.
Fine, assuming the fees are credible (I saw £3.4k per file which seemed fine to me). Unless the new
arrangements are in effect a sabotage of the ToR Second Sight's commercial terms are not a PL issue.
e For cases which date back to pre-2007, for which records should have been destroyed under Post Office’s data
retention policies (as is best practice), carrying out a review of any available data to see if it supports a full
investigation being taken forward. Where insufficient evidence still exists, no further work would be undertaken.
We can start from a presumption of regularity, ie that in the absence of evidence that Horizon is inherently
flawed, we will need to see evidence of an issue in a specific case before there is any possibility at all of any
sort of settlement being offered. If we do not have the relevant records, then unless the SPMR can produce
them (and (s)he needs to be asked) we can say there is no possibility of progress. However, we need to be
careful to maintain a line between no/insufficient records to make any progress, and having looked at the
records and decided the evidence they contain is not convincing/weighty enough for the SMPR to "win". The
first is fine, the second short circuits the scheme. Visually, it’s the difference between "have we got a box of
records" and "what's in the box"
e Disseminating the Linklaters advice, making clear that Post Office considers itself to have very limited liability and
almost no liability in respect of consequential loss. [nb. In practice this will involve disseminating a statement of
our legal position informed by advice which will remain privileged.]
POL00149689
POL00149689
I don't see any PL issue here. Even if your advice was wrong, which I am sure it is not, JR wouldn't seem to be
the right process to follow. (Either it should be a test case under part 7 or, perhaps, seeking a declaration
under art 8, but the point is the legal issue needing resolution is contract law not public law)
¢ Setting and enforcing hard deadlines for the 40 outstanding Case Questionnaire Reviews, requiring all to be
submitted within a month or have their application removed from the Scheme.
The courts are not in good place to complain about robust case management by others, and in principle sensible
administrative rules to make any sort of scheme run smoothly are fine. If we haven't previously indicated a cut off, we
need to give fair notice, an make sure the SMPRs get it. A month might be a little short, though not critically so. We
also need to be very clear that missing the deadline, even by minutes, means the possibility of entering the scheme is
gone for ever. A really fair approach would be to indicate the deadline, and send a reminder say 14 days before. It is
difficult to imagine anyone who does not enter the scheme before the deadline having any possible excuse then,
though I can understand you might prefer to impose the deadline and then just let it run.
Stephen Hocking
Partner
DACBeachcroft LLP
100 Fetter Lane
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 12 June 2014 20:26
To: Hocking, Stephen
Cc: Chris Aujard; Belinda Crowe; Donnelly, Aimee
Subject: Re: Strictly Private & Confidential - Subject to Legal Privilege
Stephen - Chris has cleared his morning. Could you please let us know when you would be able to speak to him to
help him prep for Paula at 12?
Kind regards, Rodric
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: Thursday, June
To: Hocking, Stephen: __. GRO
Cc: Chris Aujard; Belinda Crowe; adonnelly
Subject: RE: Strictly Private & Confidential - Subject to Legal Privilege
Stephen,
Our CEO has asked for a briefing on this at midday tomorrow.
Would you be able to have a call with us sometime tomorrow morning to give us an overview of how you see the JR
risks for Option 2? It’s going to need some diary juggling so have copied Amy in case she can help.
Kind regards, Rodric
POL00149689
POL00149689
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V SHQ
®
© ©
©
Post Office stories
®
@postofficenews
©
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 11 June 2014 12:07
To: Hocking, Stephen
Cc: Chris Aujard; Belinda Crowe
Subject: Strictly Private & Confidential - Subject to Legal Privilege
Stephen,
As we have just discussed, following its meeting yesterday our Board is minded to pursue “Option 2” for taking
forward the “Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme” (see para 3.1 of the attached “Board Summary
Paper”).
The Board would now like you to advise whether decisions to take any of the steps associated with Option 2 could
give rise to an application for judicial review. Those steps (outlined in paras 3.3-3.7 of the attached “Annex Sub
Committee Paper...”) are:
e Making it clear that Post Office will deal with criminal cases last (they take longer because of the volume of
documentation and the legal clearance is more complicated and dealing with them in the bulk of other
investigations slows down progress on other cases) and that we would only mediate in these cases in exceptional
circumstances, believing that the correct next step for any of these applicants would be the Criminal Courts.
e Moving Second Sight to a fixed fee structure with a clear work-plan (potentially with incentives to increase the
speed of work) and regular quality and delivery review meetings — potentially saving several hundred thousand
pounds depending on the fee level agreed.
e For cases which date back to pre-2007, for which records should have been destroyed under Post Office’s data
retention policies (as is best practice), carrying out a review of any available data to see if it supports a full
investigation being taken forward. Where insufficient evidence still exists, no further work would be undertaken.
e Disseminating the Linklaters advice, making clear that Post Office considers itself to have very limited liability and
almost no liability in respect of consequential loss. [nb. In practice this will involve disseminating a statement of
our legal position informed by advice which will remain privileged.]
e Setting and enforcing hard deadlines for the 40 outstanding Case Questionnaire Reviews, requiring all to be
POL00149689
POL00149689
submitted within a month or have their application removed from the Scheme.
In providing your advice, please again assume that any JR application would be properly articulated with the
assistance of specialist counsel, and please again identify for us any steps which we could take to minimise the risk of
aJR application, and/or increase our ability to successfully defend such an application.
As we discussed, we would like to receive your advice by Friday 13 June 2014 so that it can inform our approach to a
meeting of the Scheme’s Working Group on Monday 16 June 2014.
Please let me know if this will present any difficulties for you, or if you need anything further.
With thanks for your continuing support, Rodric
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
@ 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
Postline: 5460 3185.
© Post Office stories
© @postofficenews
Je SD I IHD III IOI IDO IIIS IID IIE III ION III IOI II IIIT.
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.
DAC Beachcroft LLP - Legal Team of the Year - Public Sector (HealthInvestor Awards) and Legal Adviser of the Year
(Laing and Buisson Independent Healthcare Awards)
This email is sent for and on behalf of DAC Beachcroft LLP which is a limited liability partnership, registered in
England and Wales (registered number O0C317852), regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Our professional rules may be accessed at www.sra.org.uk. We use the word "partner" to refer to a member of the LLP
or an employee or consultant who is a lawyer with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members (all of
whom are solicitors in England and Wales, exempt European lawyers or registered foreign lawyers), together with a list
of those persons who are designated as partners, is available for inspection at our registered office, 100 Fetter Lane,
London, EC4A 1BN. For full details of the terms under which this email is distributed please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/pages/legal-notice. Please read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at
POL00149689
POL00149689
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/pages/privacypolic