POL00196709
POL00196709
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE AND MUST NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANY
PERSON WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF POST OFFICE LTD GENERAL COUNSEL OR CARTWRIGHT
KING SOLICITORS
POST OFFICE LTD
BRIEFING NOTE
Iam asked to comment on the following matters:
i. Current statistics and a brief explanation of the current position.
ii. Provide a short explanation of the Criminal Appeal process to be followed by a
defendant who, having received disclosure material from POL, wishes to appeal
against his conviction.
iii. I Provide a copy of the disclosure letter sent to those defendants whom the Review
Process requires disclosure of the Second Sight Interim Report and/or the Helen
Rose report.
iv. Provide a short explanation of the status of the Helen Rose report. In addition to
comment on the fact that this report which, unlike the Second Sight Interim
Report, is not in public domain. Detail those measures preventing a defendant or
his representatives from placing the Helen Rose report into public domain and any
consequences should he do so.
1. The current Review position is as follows:
Initial Sifts conducted - 301
Second Sifts conducted - 74
Cases subjected to Full Review - 35
Cases where Disclosure advised - 15
Cases where Disclosure Provided : 10*
Cases Discontinued - 4e*
Disclosure was advised in the case of Thomas Brown but not made as the case was discontinued.
Disclosure has been advised in Hutchings and Robinson but not yet made, as the disclosure letter is
with BAQC pending approval. Disclosure will be required in the cases of King & Jewson and
Williams (Persis) if these defendants are charged.
The cases of Patel (Jishaan), Brown (Thomas), Wylie and Knight have been terminated.
2. The prescribed process for Appealing against any conviction in the Crown Court is as
follows:
a. In order to launch an appeal a defendant must have the written advice of
counsel stating that in counsel’s opinion he has Grounds of Appeal. A
POL00196709
POL00196709
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE AND MUST NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANY
PERSON WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF POST OFFICE LTD GENERAL COUNSEL OR CARTWRIGHT
KING SOLICITORS
defendant may appeal unrepresented but this is a rare occurrence and probably
outside the scope of this short explanation.
b. Once counsel has settled his Advice and written Grounds of Appeal, the
defendant, through his solicitors, must apply to the Court of Appeal for Leave
to Appeal (permission) against his conviction. He must also seek the
permission of the Court to apply ‘out-of-time’. Both of these applications are
made on paper — a Form NG must be completed and supported by counsel’s
Advice on Appeal and a Grounds of Appeal documents, setting out why the
defendant (through his representatives) believes his conviction to be unsafe.
c. These applications are considered on paper by a Single Judge of the Court of
Appeal, who determines whether there is any merit in the appeal. If (s)he
considers that the application is without merit the Single Judge refuses
permission to appeal. Where permission is refused, the defendant may ‘renew’
his application for permission to the Full Court of Appeal: this is an oral
application to the Court, usually made by counsel. The Full Court may grant or
refuse permission. Where the Full Court refuses permission to appeal, that is
the end of the matter.
d. If the Single Judge, or the Full Court, grants permission the appeal hearing is
listed for full argument before a three-judge Court. Both prosecution and
defence provide written submissions and, on the day of the hearing, advance
oral argument as to the merits of the appeal. The Court usually (but not always)
gives judgement there and then.
e. An appeal will only succeed where the Court considers a conviction to be
‘Unsafe’. In cases where the main issue of one of disclosure, or the failure to
disclose, the question for the Court will be whether the non-disclosure had a
material effect on the outcome of the case, regardless of whether the defendant
was convicted or pleaded guilty. In cases where the defendant pleaded guilty to
his offences, as is the case with almost every POL case, he is much less likely
to succeed in the Court of Appeal
3. Appended hereto.
4. The Helen Rose report is not in the public domain and should not be placed in the
public domain. Nevertheless is subject to the disclosure rules set out in my earlier
advices, and as such should be disclosed in (rare) appropriate cases.
As a matter of law, a defendant to whom any material (including this report) is
disclosed is constrained from using that material for any purpose other than that for
which it was disclosed. This means that a defendant (and his representatives) may not
place the Helen Rose report into the public domain. To do so would be to attract
consequences which include prosecution, both of the defendant and his
POL00196709
POL00196709
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE AND MUST NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANY
PERSON WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF POST OFFICE LTD GENERAL COUNSEL OR CARTWRIGHT
KING SOLICITORS
representatives, were they to be complicit in any publication of the document. This
restriction applies to any part of the report.
Because this report goes only to the apparent knowledge of GJ at the time of his
writing of his expert court reports, its status as a disclosable document ends where he
no longer provides such reports. Accordingly it is unlikely to require disclosure in any
further cases and will not be disclosed in any pending or future prosecution.
Simon Clarke 23" October 2013
Andrew Bole
Cartwright King Solicitors.