POL00198765
POL00198765
From: Jarnail A Singh[IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FY DIBOHF23SPDLT+29
_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH6CEADABD-67E9-4ECA-94F2-
0057 16658847 @C72A47 ingest. local]
Sent: Mon 16/12/2013 PM (UTC)
To:
Ce:
David Oliverf
Subject: RE: Board Paper
Attachment: CLARIFICATION.PDF
Belinda
After much thought I asked our Senior Counsel to provide clarification to the number of points you raised below
with regards to Para.4 of his advice copy attached.
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
@ 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V SHQ
YS
Post Office stories
‘ @postofficenews
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 14 December 2013 11:23
To: Jarnail A Singh
Cc: Chris Aujard; Rodric Williams; Hugh Flemington; David Oliver
Subject: Re: Board Paper
Thanks Jarnail
This is very helpful and does, I think, clarify the position very helpfully.
Just one question of further clarification from me:
In para 4 iii the note says?
iii, That protection would not be available to an organisation which conducted its prosecutions ,,in-house’, that is, in
POL"s case, using lawyers employed directly by POL.
Am I right in interpreting this as meaning that as Post Office does not conduct its prosecutions in house - that is, it
uses Cartwright King rather than directly employed lawyers - any claim for malicious prosecution would properly
POL00198765
POL00198765
stand against Cartwright King and not POL, provided we follow our normal processes as described in the advice.
I realise the danger of trying to paraphrase the advice for the purpose of clarification but I found the wording in 4 iii
(that is, couching the point in terms of the protection 'not' being available) left me grappling with negatives so I want
make sure I am absolutely clear.
I am copying David Oliver who actually drafted the Board paper for Chris and will also copy him the note from
Cartwright King, pointing out that it is subject to LPP.
Best wishes
Belinda
On 13 Dec 2013, at 12:13, "Jarnail A Singh" <_ E wrote:
GRO
Chris
Having read Bond Dickinsons note about potential civil risks to POL,I was concerned that the likely hood of action
being brought had not been assessed.
Accordingly I asked Cartwright King to review Bond Dickinson note. I attach senior Counsel Simon Clarkes response
which clarifys the issues.
Regards
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
<image017.jpg>
<image018.png> 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V
9HQ
<image019.png> sf GRO ire GRO!
<image020.png>
<image021.png>
<image022.jpg> Post Office stories
<image023.jpg> @postofficenews
<image024.jpg>
From: David Oliver
Sent: 06 December 2013 18:30
To: Belinda Crowe; Chris Aujard; Rodric Williams; Jarnail A Singh
Subject: Board Paper
<CIVIL CLAIMS RISK - RESPONSE. pdf>
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.
POL00198765
POL00198765
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET, LONDON
EC1V 9HQ.