POL00228237
POL00228237
From: Pheasant, Andrew GRO i
Sent: Thur 07/05/2015 1:03:18 PM (UTC)
To:
Jessica Barker,
Cc: Rodric Williams
Subject: RE: Offenders Report
Dear all,
Following on from Andy's email below, the review against the POIR has been completed and we can confirm:
e Where dates are for the same event they are all the same. There are dated events in the Security Report
which are not referred to in the POIR and vice versa.
e Where figures appear that have been referred to in both reports they are all the same. There are figures in the
Security Report which are not referred to in the POIR and vice versa.
e References to call logs match. Although more detail is provided in the POIR, those that are referred to in the
Security Report have the same details (date, issue discussed, amounts referred to).
« References to Mrs Hamilton's prepared statement match, although more detail is provided in the Security
Report.
Best regards
Andy
Andrew Pheasant
Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
www.bonddickinson.com
POL00228237
POL00228237
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 07 May 2015 12:43
To: Patrick Bourke; Tom Wechsler; Jessica Barker
Cc: Rodric Williams; Pheasant, Andrew
Subject: RE: Offenders Report [BD-4A.FID25887093]
Patrick
Noted about getting a definitive number of cases — I'll look into this when I'm back in the office tomorrow.
I have however now had chance to review the Offenders Report for Hamilton.
There is nothing obviously embarrassing to POL in the Report - it is largely a factual document. There are a couple of
points on which Hamilton might raise queries:
« Final Page — Numbered Point 1 — this states that the increasing cash levels in the branch were not spotted. It
doesn't say who should have spotted this - POL or Hamilton. I think this meant POL. This could be used as
an argument to say that POL should have intervened earlier.
« On the Final Page, the Report states that it has been sent to POL Legal for advice on the merits of
prosecution. This gives rise to a couple of points:
o First, Hamilton may ask to see that advice which is obviously privileged, opening up again the debate
on POL suppressing documents.
© Second, by releasing the Offenders Report, being itself a privileged document, you raise the risk of
waiving privilege in other connected documents. To mitigate this risk, POL would need to expressly
state that the release of the Offenders Report to Hamilton does not constitute a waiver of privilege in
other documents.
Andy Pheasant is currently reviewing the Offenders Report against the POIR to make sure there are no factual
inconsistencies.
\f POL does consider releasing the Offenders Report, I would recommend first seeking advice from CK, particularly
around the concept of waiving privilege in other documents as this may operate differently in a prosecution context.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
POL00228237
POL00228237
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 07 May 2015 0:
To: Parsons, Andrew; Tom Wechsler; Jessica Barker
Ce: Rodric Williams
Subject: RE: Offenders Report
Hi Andy
Many thanks for this.
I think we do need a definitive answer on total number of cases in which this has happened (unless 2 is that answer)
and then which cases those are and what we ought to be doing about it.
It is really unfortunate that this should have happened at all (and in two of our most high profile cases to boot —
Hamilton and Thomas).
Since Jo Hamilton is already on the case, the sooner we can set this record straight the better, self-evidently.
Many thanks
Patrick
From: Parsons, Andrew; GRO
Sent: 06 May 2015 17:06
To: Tom Wechsler; Patrick Bourke; Jessica Barker
Cc: Rodric Williams
Subject: Offenders Report
All
Summary of the position on Offenders Reports
e Offenders Reports (which also go by a number of different names) are a summary of POL Security Team
findings into suspected criminal activity. They form the basis for the decision on whether to prosecute.
e Inearly 2014, POL had a prepared a small number of POIRs. Tony then asked POL to redraft the POIRs
using a new format / with a slightly different focus.
« Between the first and second versions of the POIRs, CK identified that the first versions of the POIRs had
been annexing Offenders Reports that were privileged documents (see email chain attached).
¢ This matter was discussed at POL. The decision was taken not to disclose Offenders Reports and that any
resulting issues should be escalated to Chris Aujard — see email below from Rodric.
e Asaresult, the Offenders Reports were removed from the revised versions of the POIRs. I can only find
reference to this happening in two cases: M035 and M029.
e In Jo Hamilton's case (M035), the Offenders Report, being document 12 was removed, and the subsequent
documents renumbered (hence why Jo believes that Doc 16 is now missing because it has become document
15).
As discussed, I'll re-review the M035 Offenders Report and also give some thought to the consequences of now
disclosing it.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
POL00228237
POL00228237
Follow Bond Dickinson
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Rodric Williams __ GRO ;
Sent: 08 May 2014 21:59
To: Jarnail Singh; Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Chris Aujard; Jessica Madron
Subject: Re: M029 [BD-4A.FID25887033]
All,
Having discussed this with Chris and Jessica, the protocol for the use of "Officer Reports" (or as otherwise described)
by Project Sparrow investigators when responding to individual complaints is:
1. The report is NOT to be exhibited OR expressly referenced in Post Office's formal response to a complaint.
2. It can be used by the investigator to help them understand what happened in a particular case, and to identify
other documents relevant to the case (e.g. transcripts of interviews, branch account records etc).
3. If the report is the ONLY source document still available, the investigator can repeat material from the report
(provided it is not legally privileged), but CANNOT cite the report as a reference.
4. Any challenge received about the source of a Post Office statement made from the report must be referred to
Chris.
I hope that is clear and reflects the decision made. Please let me know if not.
Kind regards, Rod
From: Jarnail Singh
To: Parsons, Andrew <i
Cc: Rodric Williams; Chris Aujard; Jessica Madron
Subject: RE: M029 [BD-4A.FID25887033]
Andy
I anticipate Chris is the best person to make a decision on this point on behalf of POL.
Are allegations POL has NOT properly investigated being made generally or in specific cases?. One of the dangers of
investigation officers report being disclosed is that it will always be easy for the applicant to think of something not
specifically referred to in the report and allege that POL investigation has not been sufficiently through or adequate.
Of course it is highly unlikely that the investigation will have been deficient, but in the absence of full set of papers it
may become impossible for POL to rebut such new allegations.
POL00228237
POL00228237
Regards
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
@ 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
/
Post Office stories
@postofficenews
©®®OoO
From: Parsons, Andrew I.
Sent: 08 May 2014 12:23
To: Jarnail Singh; Chris Aujard; Jessica Madron
Ce: Rodric Williams
Subject: RE: M029 [BD-4A.FID25887033]
Thanks Jarnail - There are two cases that are currently affected by this issue. They both urgently need to be cleared
and sent to Second Sight so how would you like to take this forward to a decision?
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
POL00228237
POL00228237
Sent: 08 May 2014 11:09
To: Chris Aujard; Jessica Madron
Cc: Rodric Williams; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: M029 [BD-4A.FID25887033]
Chris/ Jessica
As I understand it, POL has been advised by senior counsel that investigation and offender report should not be
disclosed. It is of course matter for POL to make a decision whether
to accept this advice or not and of course it would be open for POL to decide to discourse such documents.
I personally would be unhappy for such documents to be disclosure for reasons set out in counsel Harry Bowyers
advice note.
Given the email correspondence between Bond Dickinson and cartwright King, I would be grateful if I could be
informed whether POL has made a decision or Bond Dickinson are proceeding along the disclosure route without POL
having made a decision.
P.S I will forward Andrew Parsons email to CK sent on 6/5/14 at 15.38.
Thanks
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
@® 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
®
Post Office stories
@postofficenews
© ®
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 07 May 2014 16:24 _
To: Martin Smith
Cc: Rodric Williams; Jarnail Singh
Subject: RE: M029 [BD-4A.FID25887033]
Martin
Thanks — if you could mark on the docs any bits that you would prefer to be redacted that would be great.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
POL00228237
POL00228237
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Sent: 07 May 2014 16:17
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Rodric Williams; Jarnail A Sing!
Subject: M029
Hi Andy,
Thank you for your e-mail; It would appear that Harry Bowyer looked at an earlier version of the
proposed response sometime ago and before we were asked to suggest amendments on draft
responses using Track Changes. In those circumstances I have added comment to the latest version
of the proposed response which I have attached hereto.
Whilst we have advised that as a matter of principle investigation and offender type reports
should not be disclosed, I understand that there will be cases in which it is felt that there is no
alternative other than to disclose these. In such circumstances they should be appropriately
redacted. If you would like me to deal with that, please let me know.
The disclosure of redacted reports may lead to requests for the disclosure of such reports in other
cases.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss.
Kind regards,
Martin.
Martin Smith
POL00228237
POL00228237
CartwrightKing
mm SOLICITORS
Birmingham I Derby I Leeds I Leicester} London I Newcastle I Nottingham I Sheffield I Tyneside
www.cartwrightking.co.uk
This messag
this in error ple
s confid
al and may contain legally privileged information. If you have received
ete this message and let us ki
s available at each office. Authorised
Authority No:312459, VAT Registration No: 7:
A list of
7837295,
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
nail and any attachments is confidential and m:
e-mail ani
The information in this e
ally privile
ed and protected by law. jarn only is
authorised to access th any attachments. If you are not jan soon
as possible and delete
and may be unlawful
copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribu cation or attachments is prohibited
Any files attached to this e-mail will have
cked by us with virus detection software before transmission. Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for
any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any 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 partnership rej
Our registered office is St Ann’s Wharf, 112 Quayside, Neweastle Upon Tyne, NE1 3DX, where a lis
partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standi
gistered in England and Wales under number OC317661
of members > the term
Our VAT registration number is GB1233936:
mes is open to inspection. We
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority,
Je SIR ISDS III IIS IDO IO II II ISIS III III ISO III IOI 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.
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 OS ID IIHS ISI IID IIS IO III IIIS III III II II III II
Je OS IS SSSI I ISIS IIS IODIDE
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
POL00228237
POL00228237
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: Finsbury Dials, 20
Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
JESS ISIS I INI ISIS IIS IODIDE