POL00349378
POL00349378
Message
From:
on
behalf
of
Sent:
To:
Jarnail Singh [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH
67E9-4ECA-94F2-005716658847 @C72A47.ingest.local]
Jarnail Singh <IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH
67E9-4ECA-94F2-0057 16658847 @C72A47.ingest.local> [IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JARNAIL+2EA+2ESINGH
67E9-4ECA-94F2-005716658847 @C72A47.ingest.local]
08/10/2014 16:13:06
Chris Aujar«
Subject:FW: Sir AH
Chris
Further to earlier email. Please see email below of Simon Clarkes more considered advice in permitting convicted
applicants to the mediation scheme and support for permission for leave to appeal to the court of appeal.
Regards.
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
©DDOOD
From: Simon Clarke I
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
Post Office stories
@postofficenews
Sent: 08 October 2014 12:
To: Jarnail Singh
Subject: Sir AH
Jarnail,
At your request we have again considered the decision of Sir Anthony Hooper to pees his casting
vote in M030. We are of the opinion that, were POL to mediate on the basis of the issue “
whether the PO would agree to support an application for permission to appeal that gonviceont a
number of significant and potentially unresolvable difficulties arise:
1.
There are 38 so-called criminal Applicants in the scheme. If one such Applicant were to be
permitted to mediate this issue then others will seek a similar concession, no doubt spurred on
by SS. Such a position would be both intolerable and untenable: for POL to mediate potential
appeal assistance with all, or most of, the criminal Applicants (not an impossible scenario)
POL00349378
POL00349378
would necessitate both considerable expenditure and, if the mediation process were to be
conducted according to the spirit of the scheme, potentially involve the making of concessions
regarding the investigative and prosecutorial process and Horizon operability.
2. Were the outcome of a mediation conducted on this issue to result in POL lending support to
an appeal, I foresee the following consequences:
i. POL would be required to answer to the Court of Appeal both for its earlier
prosecutorial decisions and its new (mediated) stance. POL’s support of an appeal for
only one of 7 offences (as in this case) would take some explaining. Given that any
appeal against a theft conviction must be predicated upon (alleged/ perceived) Horizon
failings, the Court would inevitably wish to consider allegations of Horizon error,
reliability, etc. Such an enquiry could involve investigation into the wider Horizon
context.
ii. The implications for POL, were such an appeal to be successful, would include both a
further disclosure exercise of some considerable scope and further appeals, for a finding
by the Court against Horizon would fundamentally (and adversely) alter POL’s
position on the topic.
iii. I We have reviewed some 300 criminal convictions (and guilty pleas) back to 1st January
2010. It is likely that a substantial number of these convictions would be appealed off
the back of a successful first appeal.
iv. The Court of Appeal sits in open hearing and the press are permitted to attend and
report upon proceedings. Given media interest thus far it is inevitable that a (largely
hostile) press would attend and report widely on the proceedings.
3. POL could, I suppose, refuse to mediate with this Applicant. Such a course however would
likely engender stiff opposition from SS, who would no doubt publicise the fact. The
repercussions of that publicity would be felt both within the scheme itself and by a wider
audience.
We again reiterate our advice that POL should not engage in any mediation process with so-called
criminal Applicants.
S
Simon Clarke
GRO
Tel:i
CartwrightKing
mee SOLICITORS —
Birmingham I Derby I Leeds I LeicesterI London I Milton Keynes I Nottingham I Sheffield I Tyneside
www.cartwrightking.co.uk
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you have received
it in error please notify us immediately by return email, do not copy it or its contents to anyone
else and delete it. Thank you for your cooperation.
A list of directors is available at each office. Cartwright King is authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority No: 312459. VAT Registration No: 737837295
We cannot guarantee that this e-mail and any attachments are virus-free, but you should please
check.
Simon Clarke
GRO
Tel:
POL00349378
POL00349378