POL00371762
POL00371762
Message
From: Martin Edwards [/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MARTIN EDWARDS1F838E9D3-CC99-4040-B432-33552E99ED2DDD]
Sent: 02/07/2013 23:28:02
To:
Subject: FW: PV and AP brief
Better language from Susan and Hugh — think this is as firm as we’re going to get
From: Susan Crichton
Sent: 03 July 2013 00:25
To: Martin Edwards
Cc: Hugh Flemington
Subject: RE: PV and AP brief
Martin
How about this — cannot use the word report as we haven't seen it yet.
“ Nothing has emerged from the interim findings given to us by SS which would point to specific convictions being
unsafe. Cases have been through the judicial process and the Court considers all relevant evidence not just that relating
to the Horizon computer system. “
Martin — re action against sub postmasters
Since the start of the SS investigation POL has not obtained a criminal conviction which relies solely on horizon computer
system evidence; POL has also put on hold civil recovery proceedings in certain cases whilst we await the final report
from SS.
From: Martin Edwards
Sent: 02 July 2013 23:42
To: Susan Crichton
Cc: Hugh Flemington
Subject: RE: PV and AP brief
Mark just raised a similar point (with slightly different suggestion on language):
Do they need an if pressed line on miscarriages of justice? "Nothing has emerged in this report to suggest wrongful
conviction. Cases have been through the judicial process and we have never relied entirely on Horizon in any court case"
From: Martin Edwards
Sent: 02 July 2013 23:27
To: Susan Crichton
Cc: Hugh Flemington
Subject: RE: PV and AP brief
Thanks both.
On the point about current investigations/prosecutions, that’s a significant weakening of the reassuring line we
discussed earlier. Can we add something along the lines of “since start of investigation we have not pursued action
against spmrs where it is apparent that Horizon system may be involved”?
POL00371762
POL00371762
And on the past convictions, if pushed can we say that we’re not aware of any cases where we believe an appeal would
now result in a different judgment (but clearly we need to take these on a case by case basis)? Difficult not to say
something like this...
From: Susan Crichton
Sent: 02 July 2013 23:19
To: Martin Edwards
Cc: Hugh Flemington
Subject: RE: PV and AP brief
Martin — Following your conversation with Hugh he and I have discussed and think that this is be best wording we can
use (see below). The bottom line is that this dialogue and resulting potential publicity - could increase the risk of
appeals being made against previous convictions, we have no reason to believe that those appeals would be
automatically successful we would have to deal with each case on a case by case basis. There would be significant cost
implications.
It is interesting that neither of us can think of one.
Susan
From: Martin Edwards
Sent: 02 July 2013 21:38
To: Susan Crichton; Paula Vennells; Hugh Flemington; Mark R Davies
Cc: Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker
Subject: RE: PV and AP brief
Many thanks Susan and Alwen. I’ll make a few drafting changes and recirculate.
On the prosecutions section of the brief there is a half-finished sentence (see below) — what were you planning to say?!
Was this going to cover the issue around previous convictions? If not, what is our best possible defence against the
suggestion that this process had called into question the validity of previous prosecutions? Think we definitely need a
line on this.
On the first bullet below, presumably we should add a sentence to state that where it is clear that the Horizon system
isn’t the issue at stake, we have a duty to protect public money by pursuing appropriate action (and this why some
prosecutions are still happening)? Presumably there is some kind of reasonableness test here — i.e. a spmr can’t just get
off scot free by saying it’s an Horizon issue, irrespective of the circumstances?
* Prosecutions
@ Where cases have been referred to SS via JFSA these are subject to the terms of the immunity agreement, which
allows non MP generated cases to be put before the JFSA and/or SS.
e For criminal prosecutions we treat each matter on a case by case basis, with an investigation and legal review
(generally involving external lawyers). We have a duty to protect public money and take appropriate action to
safeguard such public money.
e Inthe event that any person considers that there has been a miscarriage of justice they have the right to apply to the
Court of Appeal to have their conviction reviewed.
POL00371762
POL00371762
. om Susan Crichton
Sent: 02 July 2013 20:34
To: Martin Edwards; Paula Vennells; Hugh Flemington; Mark R Davies
Cc: Susan Crichton; Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker
Subject: PV and AP brief
Martin/Mark
Susan and I have pulled this together with help, so it is now over to you, to work your magic and send on the final
document to Paula, Alice and me tonight.
Hugh would you please check any comments please come back to Susan.
Mark would you also please check
Martin is holding the pen please send back to him
Also include in AP and PV and my pack any other docs you think we need
Thanks
Alwen & Susan
Susan Crichton I HR & Corporate Services Director