POL00337202
POL00337202
Message
From:
Sent: 24/09/2013 11:30:23
To: Matthews, Gavin ;
Subject: POL
Dear Gavin,
I have reviewed both terms of reference, for which I thank you.
As I understand it, I!am required to produce my written review on past/pending prosecutions etc by 15 October (or failing
that a date to be agreed) and to meet the Audit Committee/Board (1) to report in general terms about that review at the
first available opportunity and (2) at all events no later than 15 October about the efficacy of past prosecutions etc (rather
than the "safety of past convictions").
lam required to report to the Board my views about POL's prosecution function by 31 October. I assume that my written
review is required also by then although no date is written into the ToR.
lam reasonably confident that both dates are achievable. If for any reason they are not, I will inform you immediately it
becomes obvious to me.
However, there are items outstanding which I need to see. I recall asking about the following in our meeting:
1. The spreadsheet that I advised be complied at para 24(i) of my interim review of 2/8/13. As I recall it CK said in
conference that such a document was already in being and needed some refinement before sending it to me. It
may be helpful if a schedule of sifted cases as against fully reviewed cases is compiled as not only I will be
interested to see how many have gone up for full review but also do not wish to be unsighted by the detail of the
cases that have not passed the initial sift. In so far as the sifted cases are concerned I'd be looking for an idea of
why the case was refused a review, and what if any the issue in the case had been or appeared to be. I note the
conference note refers to the "master schedule" which i think was CK's term for what they had done thus far.
2. CK were to provide me with the final 3 full reviews I was missing from my papers (referred to in the conference
note). I would add that if the number has since increased then I would want any outstanding reviews which I have
not seen hitherto. I'd also like any idea of how many more full reviews there are/may be so that it can be
determined that at the date of my written review I have considered a "statistically significant" number where HOL
was at issue.
3. There was to be a reconciliation between the Second Sight reviews and CK's reviews (mentioned in the conference
note).
4. I think I had also mentioned the civil litigation side and I wanted to be clear whether there was any sharing of
information about what had been going on there. Are there any civil cases arising from HOL or has that stalled in
light of what I was told about Shoosmiths' inaction?
5. Roderic was going to see if there was any material of an historical nature which would explain RMG/POL
prosecution history. I did find an unattributed document on the net about this but it is unsourced and so I am
unclear how much reliance I can afford it.
6. Also I recall asking whether POL had any statistics or management records (not merely financial) of its prosecution
function i.e. numbers covered annually etc.
You'll recall also following my Horizon training last week that I had asked Andy Holt to see if he could get me any policy or
guidance documents POL may have on the recruitment process for SPMRs, also about the HOL training regime which has
anumber of phases and elements to it, and any HOL training manual/guidance notes and such like.
POL00337202
POL00337202
Regarding the conference note, it accords with my recollection, except in the case of a couple of the matters listed above
(points 5 and 6 in particular) which I believe were raised/discussed at or close to the very end after the departure of all
but you, Andy, Roderic and me.
As to the final paragraph of the draft conference note, I did advise that CK needed to rethink the terms of the letter they
are sending out by adding that POL was disclosing that which may cast doubt on the safety of a conviction. I cannot now
recall what it was I said about the Ishaq case or letter in particular.
lalso recall advising:
1. There was no positive duty to seek out individuals pre-1/1/10 but if POL was approached it would need to make
case-specific decisions on disclosure.
2. About the need for POL/CK to take control over what SS was disclosing in mediation process.
3. CK would have to review its stance on taking opposition to the grant of permission to appeal or to a substantive
appeal depending on the changing landscape.
For the sake of completeness, CK has, as you know, send me the draft protocol for my consideration which I emailed you
about this morning.
Finally, I have not identified anyone else I would like to hear from for the purpose of my reviews. It is likely that once I
start drilling down more that may change and if I need to speak to people, I shall let you know.
Best wishes,
Brian
Brian Altman Q.C.
2 BEDFORD ROW
THE CHAMBERS OF WILLIAM 36 ac
Chambers contacts
address: 2 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4BU
website: www.2bedfordrow.com