POL00169322
POL00169322
From: Jarnail Singh[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JARNAIL.A.SINGH6CEADABD-67E9-4ECA-94F2-
005716658847]
Sent: Wed 23/04/2014 11:15:45 AM (UTC)
To:
Hailstones{
Ce:
- ____GRO
Subject: RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.F1D20472253]
Andrew/ Angela
In my view the issues relate to the sensitivity of the information contained in the investigation officers report and data
protection act. Whilst it is open to POL to disclose appropriately redacted investigated report, I am concerned of the
danger which may arise if such reports are disclosed in some cases and not others. It is possible POL may be
challenged as to why it choice to disclose in some cases and not others.
I am less concerned with the fact that investigation report is not signed statement but more concerned with the
potential content of the report which may be potentially damaging to the POLS interest Accordingly I think more
clarity is required with regards to POLs policy on disclosure of such report.
We have been advised that a uniform and consist approach to each report would be best way forward rather then
make decisions on case by case basis.
POL has been advised by senior counsel and I agree with that advice. I would reiterate that the investigation report
generally sets out details of the evidence.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
® 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
YS
“&) i
wy i
© Jarail.a.singh¢ GRO
ie Post Office stories
Q&S
et @postofficenews
i)
From: Parsons, Andrew I GRO
Sent: 22 April 2014 10:3
To: Jarnail Singh; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rodric Williams; Kathryn Alexander; Shirley Hailstones
POL00169322
POL00169322
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Jarnail
The challenge with the usual prosecution approach is that statements and exhibits are verified by statements of truth
which are enforced under Court rules. We have no Court rules here to make such statements binding and therefore
information provided through this route is no more credible than writing the information in POL's investigation report.
It would therefore be useful in some circumstances to disclose the original source document (even if redacted) as the
originality of that document comes with inherent credibility.
Please can you confirm whether this approach (of releasing redacted documents) is possible or whether from a
criminal law perspective there is an inviolable principle that we cannot disclose such documents.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Jarnail Singh I
Sent: 22 April 2014 10:00
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; Kathryn Alexander; Shirley Hailstones
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Angela
The point is If the Officers report contain information that the defence should have prosecution usually we
can serve it in some other way — either by statement, documentary exhibit etc. We should this stance.
Regards.
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
@ 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
wy
-
©
©
POL00169322
POL00169322
Jamnail.a.singht
(=) Post Office stories
7
f&) @postoffi
® ostofficenews
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 22 April 2014 08:35
To: Jarnail Singh; Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; Kathryn Alexander; Shirley Hailstones
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Andy,
We do refer to the officer's report in case M054 and in this instance using this report does in my view make
for a more conclusive case. Therefore my view is that this needs to be addressed on a case by case basis
as you suggest but with a presumption against disclosure unless absolutely necessary.
Kath, Shirley — please ensure that if you wish to use an investigation officer’s report as a supporting
document that you flag this to BD when you send them the report so that they can advise accordingly.
Thanks,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd I Head of Partnerships
@ 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V SHQ
® @postofficenews
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
please contact me by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
POL00169322
POL00169322
From: Jarnail Singh
Sent: 17 April 2014 14:28
To: Parsons, Andrew; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rodric Williams
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: RE: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Andy
In prosecution these documents are not disclosed to the defence as they are not the primary evidence
rather a prosecution working tool. If they contain information that the defence should have prosecution
usually serve it in some other way — either by statement, documentary exhibit etc.
You refer to the issue in M051 Rudkin..You say report should be disclosed in redacted form. As it contain “a
paragraph in the report that is important in disproving the allegation that the Applicant's wife was
inappropriately interviewed” . Here we would not relay on the officers report all the relevant information is
contained in Mrs Rudkin interview which would be part of the prosecution papers served on all parties .
Hope it helps..
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
@ 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
wy
Post Office stories
}
8) @postofficenews
From: Parsons, Andrew I
Sent: 17 April 2014 12:51
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rodric Williams
Cc: Parmenter, Claire; Jarnail Singh; Leigh-Doyle, Alva
Subject: Officer's report [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Angela, Rod
CK have raised a concern about disclosing "Officer's Reports" with the POL Investigation Reports. The Officer's
Reports are prepared by the POL Investigation team at a very early stage of a prosecution and are intended to set out
the facts and background of a case in order 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 also understand that the reports may also contain information about POL's processes
or improvements to those processes that would otherwise remain confidential.
This document is typically not disclosed through the prosecution process as it is part of the prosecution working papers
POL00169322
POL00169322
and therefore, I understand, it is usually exempt from disclosure (Jamail - please shout if this is wrong).
I cannot see that this document would attract legal privilege as it is an investigation document and not a document
prepared for the purposes of litigation.
It is therefore a question of commercial sensitivity as to whether to disclose these documents. Do you have a view on
whether as a point of principle this type of document should or should not be disclosed? Alternatively, do you think
this needs to be addressed on case by case basis? My feeling is that we should adopt the latter approach but with a
presumption against disclosure unless absolutely necessary
The case that flagged this issue was M051 Rudkin. The report in question is attached. My view is that this report
should be disclosed in redacted form. There is one paragraph in the report that is important in disproving the
allegation that the Applicant's wife was inappropriately interviewed — see issue 6 in the attached draft version of the
POL Investigation Report. All other parts of the report should be redacted on the grounds that they are subject to
prosecution privilege.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Direct: I
Mobile: I
Fax: : i
Follow Baar
www.bonddickinson.com
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confi ly is authorised to
access and any attachments, If you are not jarna ‘SSO aS Possible and deter
copies. Unauthorised use, d nts is prohibited and may’ be unlawful
Any fi ssion. Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage
ny attachment,
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it
This email is sent for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partns tered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our
office is St Ann's Wharf, 112 Quayside, Neweastle Upon Tyne, NEI 3DX, wh
the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT re
list of
he term partner to refer to a n
nes is open to inspection, We
ation number is GB123
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
JES SS ISSIR IIO IOI ISIE ISD II IIS II III II III DIE
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.
POL00169322
POL00169322
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
Je SR ID IIHR III III DIDO IOS IID IID ISIS IOI III IIIA.