POL00209785 - Email forwarded by Belinda Crowe to Chris Aujard regarding 2nd Sight TOR.

Evidence on official site

POL00209785
POL00209785

From: Belinda Crowe[IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FY DIBOHF23SPDLT+29
_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BELINDA+20CROWE79B93F 1 1-569F-4526-A078-
F5B4958A8917220@C72A47 ingest.local]

Sent: Fri 26/09/2014 7:13:28 AM (UTC)
To:

Ce:

Subject: FW: 2nd Sight TOR

Not sure whether I ever showed you this but it is the genesis for having allowed criminal cases into the Scheme.

Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ

Original Messagi
From: Alice Perkins!
Sent: 09 June 2012 09:36
To: Susan Crichton

Cc: Paula Vennells; Alwen Lyons
Subject: 2nd Sight TOR

Following a conversation with Alwen yesterday, and given that I am away now for a few days, I thought I should let you know before
I went where I stand on which cases should be in or out of this review.

I have given this more thought since yesterday.

Tam clear that we should include ALL the MPs' cases, irrespective of whether they have been decided in Court. If we try to draw a
distinction here we will be accused of picking cases to suit ourselves and being vulnerable on the ones we omit. We'll have a row
about that instead of moving the issue on.

On reflection, I don't buy the argument that we would somehow undermine the Court process by doing this. There are plenty of ways
in which people go over ground which has been settled in Court and if there weren't, no-one would ever be able to get a conviction
overturned. And if (which we don't believe) there were new evidence in a case which had been decided, we would want to do, and be
seen to do, the right thing by that.

So I stick by the TOR as drafted yesterday on this important point.

Where I think there may be an issue is the line between Shoesmith's cases which have been declared to us and those (many more)
which they have merely hinted at. I suggest the way to deal with those may be by time, ie we'll include those we know about as of
Monday week but not those which come after. As we said at our meeting, it would be open to the independent reviewers to say in
their findings that they think we should extend the review.

I am sorry to be bothering you with this on a Saturday but time is against us, especially as Paula is seeing James Arbuthnot on
Monday afternoon and I feel very strongly about this.

I am around this morning packing etc if you want to talk to me and of course, if necessary, you can raise me while I'm away.

Thank you

Alice

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com