POL00150228
POL00150228
From: Reid, Tom.
Sent: Mon 15/12/2014 1:33:37 PM (UTC)
To: Mark R Davies;
Cc: Helmer, Stuart
is)
Subject: Post Office interview
Attachment: Letter to the BBC dated 15.12.14(202683562_2).DOCX
Dear Mark
Susan is away from the office today so she has asked me to send this out. However we have been in
close touch with her by phone and email this morning and had her input on this letter.
With regard to the implications of the BBC making these allegations, the recent change in law has
made it much more challenging for a business to succeed in a defamation action. In particular, it can
be difficult to show the serious financial harm that is required. This letter therefore does not refer
expressly to defamation, and instead emphasises concepts from the BBC editorial guidelines such as
the right to reply and a fair and appropriate deadline for a response. However, do let us know if you
would like us to consider this further.
Kind regards
Tom
Tom Reid
Associate
Ei GRO
C’M’s’
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP I Mitre House, 160 Aldersgate Street I London EC1A 4DD I United Kingdom
www.ems-cmck.com
www.law-now.com
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 15 Decembe!
Cc: Rodric Williams; Melanie Corfield; Ruth X Barker; Chris Aujard
Subject: Fwd: Post Office interview
HI Susan
T'm sending you below the long email chain I have had with the BBC over the weekend. As discussed we
would now like to send a legal letter citing Ofcom guidelines. I think we are in a very reasonable position.
Given the questions posed by the BBC (which are at the end of this letter) I would very much welcome your
view also as to the implications of the BBC making these allegations - my own media law view is that they are
stepping into dangerous territory if some of these allegations are made.
Mark
POL00150228
POL00150228
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark R Davies
Date: 15 December 2014 10:27:11 G!
To: Ingrid Kelly {GRO
Ce: Nick Walli
Corfield
Subject: Re: Post Office interview
, Ruth X Barker +.
Hi Ingrid
I am aware of the complexities of making a programme. I remain perplexed, however, as to why
you require a further 2.5 days after today to do so and are not prepared to incorporate a Post
Office interview in that time.
Our spokesperson, as I have said, is involved in Mediation Scheme work all day today and
tomorrow. I am not prepared to jeopardise that work to accommodate your unreasonable
schedule.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Mobile:
Sent from my iPad
On 15 Dec 2014, at 09:34, "Ingrid Kelly"
Dear Mark,
lam sure you are aware that making a programme involves far more than merely filming.
As I have said it is not practically possible for the team to accommodate an interview after
today.
As you maintain your designated interviewee cannot possibly accommodate an interview
at any point today — despite our offer to be available either before or after their normal
working day (though the former is clearly now redundant) then we too are in a difficult
position.
If this person is the only person within the Post Office who is appropriate for interview,
then I’d be grateful if you could ask them to consider being interviewed at the end of their
working day today.
Failing that, then as I’ve said, we will fairly reflect the post office’s position within the film
whether or not you are on the sofa.
Regards
Ingrid
From: Mark R Davie:
Sent: 15 December 2014 08:58
To: Ingrid Kelly
Cc: Nick Wallis; Jane French; Melanie Corfield; Ruth X Barker
Subject: Re: Post Office interview
Dear Ingrid
You have singularly failed to set out why you need two full days to prepare your film
and why the interview you requested must happen today. This is not reasonable.
We stand ready to take part yet you refuse to budge from a self imposed deadline and
are unable to explain why you require more than 48 hours to prepare a film, having
presumably shot most of it, including several interviews designed to traduce the Post
Office's position. I note from his Twitter feed that Nick was filming for 10 hours on
Thursday.
While we would like to appear in your film we reserve the right to ensure that, given
the range of issues you are raising, we make the most suitable person available. She is
not available today due to work on the Scheme. I am therefore stuck - do I place the
Scheme and the interests of applicants ahead of your request? The answer here is
obvious.
We will send you a statement and a very full document setting out the answers to the
questions posed by Mr Wallis. I would request that given your refusal to
accommodate a full and proper Post Office interview the statement is used in full.
We did indeed suggest that we have a slot on your sofa. I didn't imagine for a
moment this would mean a scenario where our points would not be reflected through
interview in your film. It provides no real opportunity for the Post Office to respond
to the serious and unfounded allegations you plan to make.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communicati
Mobile:!_
and
orporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPhone
POL00150228
POL00150228
POL00150228
POL00150228
On 14 Dec 2014, at 22:38, "Ingrid Kelly" {~ GR
> wrote:
As i have said unfortunately the team cannot accommodate a filmed
interview beyond monday. Far from asking you to prioritise us over the
scheme, we've said we can accommodate the interview as early or late
tomorrow as necessary to suit your allotted person so as not to interfere
with their working day. If neither you nor any other spokesperson can be
available then, as ever, we can accept a written response. Appearing live
in the studio on the sofa after the film was your suggestion which we
were happy to accommodate. Should you no longer wish to do that
then while it is disappointing, it is your decision. The offer remains
open.
Regards
Ingrid
On 14 Dec 2014, at 21:19, "Mark R Davies"
wrote:
Hi Ingrid
Thanks for this. I am struggling to understand why it
"needs" to be on Monday, particularly as, for the reasons set
out in my earlier emails, we are unable to provide a suitable
spokesperson on Monday due to competing business
priorities related to the Scheme and applicants. It would be
ironic indeed if we were to relegate these responsibilities.
As I've also said, and as Nick has acknowledged, your sofa
slot will not provide a suitable forum for the Post Office to
respond to the very serious and unfounded allegations you
plan to make in what will now inevitably be a film which
does not present a full and rounded picture. It would be
extremely unfair to suggest as you do now that a minute or
two in the studio will provide suitable opportunity for the
Post Office's position to be fairly reflected.
Given the circumstances therefore we could not appear in
the studio.
lL ask you again to please reconsider your refusal to accept a
Post Office spokesperson for your film on a more
reasonable deadline.
Many thanks
Mark
Mark Davies
Communicati
d Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPhone
POL00150228
POL00150228
On 14 Dec 2014, at 1
"Ingrid Kelly"
Dear Mark,
As I've said if you or a colleague wish to be
interviewed for the film then it needs to be on
Monday. You may feel late Tuesday is
reasonable but as i've made plain from the
outset, beyond Monday is not possible for us.
As i've also said any monday interview can be
as early or as late as you wish. Should neither
you nor your colleague be available for a filmed
interview tomorrow then we are content with a
statement for the film as we had last week. As
things stand, you yourself will be on the sofa on
wednesday and able to reflect the Post Office's
position.
Regards
Ingrid
14 Dec 2014
"Mark R Davies"
“} wrote:
Hi Ingrid
It isn't about your schedule
disappointing us at all, it is about
our reasonable offer, repeated
again here, to provide an interview
for your programme and your
reluctance to accommodate us in a
reasonable timescale.
It is a little baffling that you are
not prepared to allow us
reasonable time to respond with an
interview. While I appreciate the
demands of filming, editing and
clearing at your end, we are able to
offer an interview for your
programme a full 24 hours before
you broadcast. That seems
eminently reasonable to me and I
am sure it is logistically achievable.
Without Post Office input by
interview into the film and the
opportunity to respond to the
detailed points and allegations
made it will clearly be impossible,
as Nick has accepted, to respond
fully in the studio in a two or three
minute slot. I do not think in those
circumstances we could appear in
the studio: the film will be very
skewed without our voice in it.
Given the work my colleague must
undertake on behalf of the Scheme
and applicants this week, I will
have to check with her, but I think
it might be possible to conduct an
interview in the late afternoon on
Tuesday.
I think she will be out of London
but I am sure this can be
overcome. Do let me know what
time would be suitable and I will
confirm a location.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate
Affairs Director
Mobile
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Dec 2014, at 17:40.
Kelly"
wrote:
Hi Mark,
I'm sorry if our
schedule disappoints
and inconveniences
you or the post office
but we won't be
postponing. You
have the allegations
and our schedule. You
can respond within the
film by a statement if
no one appropriate is
POL00150228
POL00150228
available for interview
on monday - and of
course you yourself
will be responding on
the sofa after the item
airs.
Regards
Ingrid
On 13 Dec 2014, at
17:07, "Mark R
Davies"
Hi Ingrid
That is
very
disappoin
ting. To
stress we
would
like to
offer a
spokespe
tson for
your
program
me's pre-
recorded
film and
are able
to but not
in the
timetable
you
suggest.
Our
position
is very
reasonabl
el
assume
the
program
me will
return
after
Christmas
What is
POL00150228
POL00150228
the
urgent
reason
for being
unable to
give us
the time
we need?
You plan
to make a
series of
complex
and very
serious
allegation
s about
Post
Office
Ltd, all of
which can
be
answered
in detail.
I do not
understan
d why
your
timescale
s are such
that you
cannot
accommo
date an
interview
for a film
24 hours
before
broadcast
. You are
asking for
48 hours
for your
own
internal
processes
Nick has
himself
suggested
that a
POL00150228
POL00150228
sofa slot
would
not really
give us
the
opportuni
ty to
answer
the very
complex
range of
allegation
s he is
making.
We agree
and
clearly
would be
unable to
take part
in the
studio if
our
position
is not
reflected
in the pre-
recorded
film.
It cannot
be fair to
feature a
series of
other
interview
s in the
film, all
of which
were
presumab
ly filmed
last week
in good
time for
your
deadlines,
without
giving
Post
Office,
which is
POL00150228
POL00150228
very firm
in its
position,
the
opportuni
ty to
respond.
There are
two sides
to every
story, as
you
know.
I would
like to
ask you
to
reconside
tT your
position
please.
Best
wishes
Mark
Mark
Davies
Communi
cations
and
Corporat
e Affairs
Director
Mobile:
07436
034032
Sent from
my
iPhone
On 13
Dec
2014, at
12:24,
"Ingrid
POL00150228
POL00150228
POL00150228
POL00150228
I'm afraid not. The programme is off air for a fortnight
and will run on weds. If you really can't do an pre
recorded interview on monday then as you'll be on the
sofa on weds, you'll be able to respond then.
Regards
Ingrid
On 13 Dec 2014, at 1 "Mark R Davies"
Hi Ingrid
Many thanks for this.
In that case please can I formally request that the
item is held until it is possible for the Post Office
to respond on film? There is no urgency or need
to broadcast this item on Wednesday, especially
as the Mediation Scheme is continuing. Due to
pressing and competing business priorities
related to the mediation scheme and involving
applicants to it, we cannot provide suitable
representation until late Tuesday afternoon at
the earliest.
I appreciate your own legal and other processes -
you will appreciate our own.
Tam formally offering you this interview with a
senior manager who leads on the issues you are
discussing and think it is reasonable for the Post
Office to have the opportunity to put forward its
position in a reasonable timescale.
We also stand ready to put a spokesperson up
live in the studio.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Mobile::
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Dec 2014, at 09:48, "Ingrid Kelly"
wrote:
Hi Mark,
I'm afraid the practicalities mean a filmed
interview wd need to be done on monday
to be incorporated into the piece. The
lawyers and editorial advisory teams all
need to take their time checking the Item
so it's a rather cumbersome process. The
interview can be as early or as late as
suits but it does need to be monday i'm
afraid.
best
ingrid
On 13 Dec 2014, at 09:29, "Mark R
Davies"
Hi Nick
Many thanks for your email.
As you will appreciate you have
raised a broad range of issues which
range across legal, IT and network
support. We are very keen to be
able to respond to all these issues in
detail, particularly as there are some
really fundamental points raised in
your questions.
To that end we are working to
ensure that we can provide you with
the best possible response. As
mentioned in my previous email, as
well as input from the suppliers of
our IT system and a legal view on
the serious points you raise, we
need (and I think this is reasonable)
to provide you with a spokesperson
who can speak across this range of
issues.
We are dealing however on Monday
and Tuesday with mediation scheme
matters which relate to applicants.
So we can absolutely be available
later on Tuesday or on Wednesday
POL00150228
POL00150228
morning.
I do appreciate the challenges you
have around filming and editing of
course but I am sure you will
appreciate the challenges from our
side as well.
I suggest we speak first thing
Monday morning and hopefully you
will be able to come back to me on
the timescale above and I will be
able to update you too on where we
are - please be assured we will do
everything we can to ensure we give
you the opportunity to interview the
Post Office on these important
matters.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate
Affairs Director
Mobile
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Dec 2014, at 20:43, "Nick
Wallis"
wrote:
Hi Mark
Thanks for your email. I am
delighted you are inclined to
offer studio live and pre-
recorded filmed interviews.
As Ingrid (cc'd) has confirmed
the planned transmission date
for both would be Wed 17 Dec,
to coincide with the planned
Westminster Hall adjournment
debate on the Post Office called
by James Arbuthnot MP.
As Jane (cc'd) explained to you
on the phone and as I am sure
you understand, we need to set
a time for the pre-recorded
interview well in advance of the
planned transmission date as
POL00150228
POL00150228
the interview will have to be
edited and go through all the
usual processes before being
delivered to the One Show for
broadcast. It is in no one's
interest to rush this.
As Ingrid may have mentioned
(and I defer to her on exactly
how things may be happening
on Wednesday), any studio
guest you nominate will most
likely be allotted around three
minutes interview time, but with
Victoria Wood, Michael Ball, a
children's choir already booked
on Wednesday and the
unpredictability of a live studio
environment, the interview
might get curtailed, or the
discussion itself might veer off
topic, despite everyone's best
efforts.
Could I therefore urge you to fix
up a date and time as soon as
possible to film a pre-recorded
interview where we can ask
you, and give you the
opportunity to answer, a series
of questions on the subjects
raised below in a calm and
controlled environment.
The interview will, of course, be
edited, but we will be
scrupulous in our duty of
fairness towards the interviewee
and the answers they give.
Furthermore, whether either,
both or no proposed interviews
end up being broadcast, we will
be taking all reasonable steps to
ensure the Post Office's
perspective on the serious
matters below is properly
represented.
T hope all that makes sense.
Just to ensure you are clear on
the internal division of labour
surrounding the two proposed
interview opportunities, Ingrid
will deal with you re the
arrangements re the possible
live interview on the One Show
sofa, whilst Jane and I can work
with you to arrange a pre-
recorded interview at a location
POL00150228
POL00150228
of your convenience.
T hope to hear from you soon re
a proposed pre-recorded
interview location/date/time and
interviewee. I am happy to
liaise with you over the
weekend to book it in in good
time.
Yours,
Nick
POL00150228
POL00150228
]
Sent: 12 December 2014 18:47
To: Ingrid Kelly
Cc: Jane French; Nick Wallis;
Melanie Corfield; Ruth X Barker
Subject: Re: Post Office
interview
Ah - thanks Ingrid. That does
give us more time. Many
thanks for clarifying.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and
Corporate Affairs Director
Mobile: am)
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Dec 2014, at 18:34,
"Ingrid Kelly"
¢
wrote:
No Mark that's my
mistake in the
voicemail. as per my
text - it is weds!
Apologies all. Ingrid
On 12 Dec 2014, at
18:32, "Mark R.
Davies"
Dear Jane,
Thank you for
your time today.
Just to follow up
my previous
email, I can
confirm that the
Post Office
would welcome
the opportunity
to respond in
your film and in
the studio to the
very serious and
detailed
allegations being
made in the email
we received from
Nick Wallis
(copied below
for ease of
reference).
I understand
from Ingrid Kelly
that you are now
planning to air
this item on_
Monday evening.
This comes as a
surprise as you
indicated
Tuesday or
Wednesday when
we spoke earlier.
Either way, given
the very serious
nature of the
allegations being
made, and the
requirement to
give us
reasonable time
to respond, we
do not believe
we can meet
your deadline
of noon on
Monday for an
interview to be
conducted.
We are inclined
POL00150228
POL00150228
to offer an
interview but our
spokesperson,
who is leading
the investigations
process on the
matters you
reference, is
involved in
mediation
scheme work on
Monday and
Tuesday. I am
sure you will
recognise that
this work,
which involves
scheme
applicants, is
very important.
She could be
available later in
the week and as
she is best placed
to speak for the
business on the
complex range of
issues you have
raised, I believe
it is reasonable to
ask you to hold
off on
broadcasting
your item until
such time as we
are able to
respond
properly.
Moreover, our
spokesperson is
able to respond
to the specific
issues you raise
in a way no other
colleaguein our
business can
given her role
and first hand
knowledge of the
specifics Nick
POL00150228
POL00150228
has referred to. I
would also stress
again, however,
that Post Office
cannot comment
on individual
cases.
The Ofcom
guidelines on
matters like this
make clear that
we should be
given reasonable
time to consider
and make our
response to
requests such as
this. What
constitutes a
reasonable time
must surely take
the urgency of a
situation into
account. There is
no urgency here,
especially in the
light of your
broadcast last
week and the
ongoing nature
of the mediation
scheme, not to
mention the point
T raised on the
phone about
potential
compromise of
cases going
through the
scheme. Given
that the
programme is
broadcast every
evening it seems
reasonable to me
to ask for the
timescales to be
extended so that
we can respond
properly.
POL00150228
POL00150228
T look forward to
hearing from
you. I am also
copying this to
Ingrid Kelly who
kindly left me a
voicemail this
afternoon
confirming that
we could indeed
have a slot in the
studio to answer
questions on
your film. I also
copy Nick
Wallis, and Mel
Corfield and
Ruth Barker
from the Post
Office press
office.
Tam happy to
discuss this over
the weekend.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications
and Corporate
Affairs Director
From: Nick
Wallis
December 2014
11:53
To: Melanie
Corfield
Subject:
Interview request
Dear Melanie,
1) Thank you for
POL00150228
POL00150228
your help with
The One Show
item transmitted
on Tuesday
9thDecember.
We are now
preparing a
second film
which is due to
go out on The
One Show on
BBC] at around
the same time
next week. We
would be most
grateful if the
Post Office
would be
prepared to offer
an interview
expressing its
point of view in
the continuing
dispute with
some
Subpostmasters
over Horizon and
associated issues.
This would need
to be recorded
by noon on
Monday but we
would be able to
meet you at your
location of
choice and we
can do it over the
weekend if that is
the only option.
2) The film we
are broadcasting
once again refers
to concerns over
Horizon. This
time it features
the story of
Steve Phillips
from Nelson in
South Wales
who is having
problems with
POL00150228
POL00150228
the system, as
well as
interviews from a
group of former
subpostmasters
including Noel
Thomas, Jo
Hamilton, Julian
Wilson, who say
they felt under
pressure to sign
off incorrect
accounts even
though they did
not understand
how sums could
be missing.
Mr Phillips says
he and other
Subpostmasters
live in fear of
being told to pay
back losses
neither you or
they can explain,
and he adds that
he and other
Subpostmasters
do not trust
Horizon. This
latter point of
trust in Horizon
by
Subpostmasters
is one which has
come up many
times with other
former
Subpostmasters
we have spoken
to.
3) In our film
former
Postmasters say
it is difficult to
investigate the
causes of
shortfalls for
which they are
held liable,
POL00150228
POL00150228
because of the
way Horizon and
associated POL
processes and
policy function.
They say in order
to open for
business the day
after the close of
a trading period
they had to agree
to pay back
alleged shortfalls
(either by settling
to cash or
settling centrally,
which implies
payment later).
They say this put
them in a very
difficult position.
4) We ask one
former
Subpostmaster
why she pleaded
guilty to false
accounting in
court when she
believed herself
to be innocent.
She tell us she
felt she couldn’t
defend herself
because she
didn’t have
proper records,
that the Post
Office had taken
some potentially
useful items and
paperwork away
during their
investigation and
she felt she
would be
prosecuted for
theft as well as
false accounting
if she had not
pleaded guilty to
the latter.
POL00150228
POL00150228
5) We
understand from
the
Subpostmaster
contract and
from speaking to
former
Subpostmasters
who have been
through the
process that
Subpostmasters
are not allowed a
legal
representative
when they are
interviewed
under caution by
Post Office
investigators.
Instead they are
allowed one
companion who
must be a Post
Office employee,
who is not
allowed to speak.
Does this still
happen? If so,
why does the
Post Office think
it is fair? Also,
we are aware
that Post Office
conducts PACE
interviews at
which
Subpostmasters
are allowed legal
representation.
Could you
explain in what
circumstances
you think it
appropriate to
interview
someone under
caution but with
legal
representation,
and why this is
POL00150228
POL00150228
not available to
Subpostmasters
in the interviews
which usually
precede them?
6) We would
also like to put to
you some
opinion about the
Post Office’s
approach to
investigating and
prosecuting
subpostmasters.
We are in
possession of
expert opinion
from a professor
in criminal justice
which implies the
Post Office’s
dual function as
investigator and
prosecutor, and
its 300 year
cultural history
of using it
against its agents
is unique. That’s
not to say he
thinks you are
the only
organisation with
prosecuting
powers, but that
you have a
unique culture of
prosecuting your
agents. He
implies this
approach lacks
the checks and
balances of a
typical
prosecution by
the CPS. In his
opinion this
creates a
situation where
miscarriages of
justice are more
POL00150228
POL00150228
likely to occur.
The Post Office
has assured us in
a Freedom of
Information Act
request that it
uses the Crown
Code for
Prosecutors. Can
you please
explain how this
code was applied
in the following
cases: Jackie
McDonald,
Damian Owen
and Tom Brown.
In these cases the
Post Office
pursued its own
prosecution
despite no
prosecution
having been
brought by the
CPS after police
investigations. If
you are unable to
unable to
comment on
individual cases,
please comment
on cases like this
in general.
7) There is also a
point raised by
Geoffrey
Sturgess, a
business contract
expert. He
believes
Subpostmasters
should be told
about the history
of known
problems with
Horizon (such as
the Calender
Square issue and
others raised in
POL00150228
POL00150228
Second Sight’s
Interim Report)
which have led to
shortfalls in
Subpostmaster
accounts and the
history of other
allegations
against Horizon
before they are
allowed to sign
the
Subpostmaster
contract.
8) We will also
include opinion
from Sandip
Patel QC who
specialises in
areas including
business fraud
and cyber crime.
He will say he
believes that
innocent people
might have been
wrongly
convicted. He
will also say
there may be
grounds for
arguing that the
Horizon system
(incorporating
the business
processes around
it) is not as
reliable as the
Post Office
believed it to be.
He goes on to
say that if the PO
had failed to
carry out a
proper inquiry in
circumstances
when they should
have, then some
of the
convictions of
some of the
POL00150228
POL00150228
Postmasters in
the mediation
scheme might be
unsafe.
9) With more
than a hundred
MPs now saying
they have no
confidence in the
mediation
scheme we
would like to ask
the Post Office
what it thinks is
the correct way
to move forward
and find an
equitable
resolution to the
concerns of
subPostmasters
up and down the
country.
10) In summary,
we have found a
number of
experts in their
field who have
concerns about
the Horizon
system, the PO’s
investigations
and prosecutions
function and the
fairness of the
Subpostmaster
contract. It
suggests there is
the possibility
that the way the
Post Office goes
about its business
or did go about
its business needs
some proper
explanation. One
MP described the
nature of the
relationship
between the Post
POL00150228
POL00150228
Office and
SPMRs as
“feudal”, yet you
call them your
“fife blood”.
The content of
the proposed
programme is
not set in stone.
This is an
opportuninty for
the Post Office
to respond to the
widespread
criticism it is
currently facing.
I am seeking a
senior member of
staff from the
Post Office who
can explain
everything from
the Post Office’s
perspective so
that we can get
to the bottom of
what has
happened to
these people. If
you will not
appear on
camera then we
ask that you
provide a
substantive
response to the
issues raised
above by noon
this
coming Monday
15 Dec.
Thank you
POL00150228
POL00150228
creeeers
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.
JERI IIIS I HII
POL00150228
POL00150228
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.
JER ID ID IDI IDI III IODIDE
POL00150228
POL00150228
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.
coeeeetterd
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.
creeeeeetentd
creneeentened
This email
and any
attachmen
ts are
confidenti
al 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
communic
ation. 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
specificall
y stated.
POST
OFFICE
LIMITED
is
registered
in England
POL00150228
POL00150228
and Wales
no
2154540.
Registere
d Office:
148 OLD
STREET,
LONDON
EC1V
9HQ.
ereeeeeetened
POL00150228
POL00150228
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.
Je OHIO IO ISIS IO IIIS IIIB III III
Sennen net te ret tartan tenet?
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.
POL00150228
POL00150228
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.
JES OB ID ISSR II III III ISO IIS III ISS III III III II III II III III
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.
CMS has 59 offices around the world, located in Aberdeen, Algiers, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Barcelona, Beijing, Belgrade, Berlin, Bratislava, Bristol,
Brussels, Bucharest, Budapest, Casablanca, Cologne, Dubai, Duesseldorf, Edinburgh, Frankfurt, Geneva, Glasgow, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kyiv, Leipzig,
Lisbon, Ljubljana, London, Luxembourg, Lyon, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Moscow, Munich, Muscat, Paris, Podgorica, Prague, Rio de Janeiro, Rome,
Sarajevo, Seville, Shanghai, Sofia, Strasbourg, Stuttgart, Tirana, Utrecht, Vienna, Warsaw, Zagreb and Zurich.
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a member of CMS Legal Services EEIG (CMS EEIG), a European Economic Interest Grouping that coordinates an
organisation of independent law firms. CMS EEIG provides no client services. Such services are solely provided by CMS EEIG’s member firms in their
respective jurisdictions. CMS EEIG and each of its member firms are separate and legally distinct entities, and no such entity has any authority to bind any
other. CMS EEIG and each member firm are liable only for their own acts or omissions and not those of each other. The brand name "CMS" and the term
“firm” are used to refer to some or all of the member firms or their offices. Further information can be found at www.cmslegal.com
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registration number OC310335. It is a body corporate
which uses the word "partner" to refer to a member, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. It is authorised and regulated
by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales with SRA number 423370 and by the Law Society of Scotland with registered number 47313.
A list of members and their professional qualifications is open to inspection at the registered office, Mitre House, 160 Aldersgate Street, London EC1A
4DD. Members are either solicitors or registered foreign lawyers. VAT registration number: 974 899 925. Further information about the firm can be found at
www.cms-cmck.com
The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including
any attachments) from your system. Notice: the firm does not accept service by e-mail of court proceedings, other processes or formal notices of any kind
without specific prior written agreement.