POL00408665
POL00408665
Message
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson f,
Sent: 21/07/2016 10:28:08
To: Parsons, Andrew [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=First Administrative Group/cn=Recipients/cn=ap6]
cc: Prime, Amy [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Amy Prime439]; Gribben, Jonathan [/O=BOND PEARCE/OU=EXTERNAL
(FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=JG5X]
Subject: RE: Remote Access [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Attachments: 048.Bates.sections for our letter of response.docx; 049.Bates.current draft letter of response with small
amendments.docx
Dear Andy,
I’ve fiddled about with your proposed insertions, and here is the result. If you can look at this before we speak at 12, it
would save some time.
To understand the context of the insertions, I had a quick look at the relevant parts of current draft letter of claim and
have spotted some small changes that I think would make it better (although you are allowed to disagree). These
changes are also enclosed — they are in sections 1, 2,5, SAand 6E. Please note that, essentially, I have only read the bits
of the letter that I have changed — you have not asked for my views on the whole letter and I will not burden you with
them unless really want me to.
Finally, I will send you a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision in Willers v Gubay (or Willers v Joyce), confirming that
malicious prosecution is available for civil proceedings. It is 67 pages long and you will need to review it to ensure that
one of the necessary ingredients is still the one relied on in para 6.34 of the (amended) Letter of Response enclosed (can
one maliciously use the legal process without reasonable basis in circumstances where one is genuinely using the
process for the purpose of making the claim sought and not for any other collateral purpose)?
Best wishes,
Tony
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/blob ?blobguid=I591A8D604E6311E6847CED24A99D948D&file=UKT_2016_07
_39355179.pdf&docguid=1591A8D604E6311E6847CED24A99D948D&isP D F=true
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailt
Sent: 21 July 2016 09:24
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson i
Ce: Prime, Amy < GRO. I Gribben, Jonathan I
Subject: RE: Remote Access [BD-4A.F1D26859284]
Ok. Speak later (that's if you can speak at all!). A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Sent: 21/07/2016 08:33
To: Parsons, Andrew
POL-BSFF-0233130
POL00408665
POL00408665
Cc: Prime, Amy; Gribben, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Remote Access [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Thanks, Andy.
Tam at the dentist at 9am (not just a check-up, sadly, they will be drilling a hole in my jawbone) but should be back by 10am. So it
looks like we'll be speaking at 12.
Tony
Sent: 21 July 2016 07:58
To: Anthony de Garr R
Ce: Prime, Amy 4
Subject: RE: Remote Access [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Gribben, Jonathan
Tony
Fair enough.
Please find attached a re-worked version of the language - now more directly and transparently explaining how Post Office can change
branch accounts.
This re-draft draws a clearer distinction between:
1. The factual allegation that Post Office has been changing branch accounts and that this is the true reason for the shortfalls in
branches.
2. The allegation that Post Office concealed its capabilities in this regard - which, at the moment, only goes to the limitation point.
The second is the more difficult point to address. First, it is not yet 100% clear that the Super User access does affect branch
accounting, though this seems very likely. Second, the reason that Post Office made incorrect statements is that it relied on
confirmations from FJ (sce attached email as an example). At some point, we may well wish to disclose the attached email in order to
show that Post Office did not "deliberately" mislead the Claimants. This will however need to be carefully managed with
Fujitsu. From a tactical perspective, this may be better done once Freeths have more accurately stated their case on concealment.
Ive got to drop my car in the garage first thing this morning (someone whacked it at the weekend...grrrr!) - would you be available for
acall at 9:30? Ifnot, would 12 noon work?
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mai
Sent: 20 July 2016 20:55
To: Parsons, Andrew
Ce: Prime, Amy; Gribben, Jonathan
Subject: Re: Remote Access [BD-4A.FID26859284]
GRO. j
POL-BSFF-0233130_0001
POL00408665
POL00408665
Dear Andy,
I've had a quick look at the drafting and I don't think it will wash. First of all, we appear to have ignored the second route by which I
understand it is possible for data to be altered remotely - the one that involves PO and has happened only once since 2010.
Second, we boldly say that they haven't given proper particulars of our concealment of the remote data alteration facility, but for years
virtually every document we submitted positively said that data could not be altered remotely. We need to say something that at least
provides a basis for explaining how we came to do this, even if we can't bring ourselves actually to acknowledge that we have made
false statements in the past and to explain why.
We must assume that this letter is going to be pored over for many hours at trial, at which time the court will know
everything. Attempting to brush this under the carpet to avoid short term embarrassment would do profound damage to our long term
credibility. In my view it would be the worst possible thing to do. It really is the case that in many cases cover ups give a much worse
impression and are much more serious than the things sought to be covered up (in this case, our previous inconsistent statements).
It may well be that I have got the wrong end of the stick, but this drafting makes me very nervous indeed.
Talk tomorrow?
Tony
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Jul 2016, at 20:06, Parsons, Andrew f
wrote: "
Tony
Please find attached the latest version of the letter - this hasn't materially changed since your amendments. I've highlighted in Blue in
the attached letter where these two sections on remote access will be fit in - see pages 22 and 45.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
POL-BSFF-0233130_0002
POL00408665
POL00408665
www.bonddickinson.com<http://www.bonddickinson.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mai
Sent: 20 July 2016 19:47
To: Parsons, Andrew
Ce: Prime, Amy; Gribben, Jonathan
Subject: Re: Remote Access [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Ok. I see it's only a small section anyway. Could you send me the longer version you've taken it from? I don't want to read and review
it, I just want to get the context clear in my head
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Jul 2016, at 19:42, Parsons, Andrew
GRO _P> wrote:
Push on - I'll sort out the fees.
Post Office loved our letter so we're in credit!
Andrew Parsons
Partner
<image001 jpg><http:/Avww.bondickinson.com/>
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image002.jpg><https://twitter.com/Bond_Dickinson><image003,jpg><http://www. linkedin.com/company/3098928?trk=tyah>
POL-BSFF-0233130_0003
POL00408665
POL00408665
www.bonddickinson.com<http://www.bonddickinson.com/<http://www.bonddickinson.com%3chttp:/www.bonddickinson.com/>>
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailto}
Sent: 20 July 2016 19:16
To: Parsons, Andrew
Ce: Prime, Amy; Gribben, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Remote Access [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Dear Andy,
I'm more or less at my budget limit. What do I do?
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto
Sent: 20 July 2016 19:05
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson
t GRO i
Subject: Remote Access [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Tony
Would you mind reviewing the attached wording on the remote access issues?
Having reviewed the Letter of Claim, the remote access point is only specifically raised in relation to limitation / s.32 concealment. It
is not cited as a ground for (i) deceit or (ii) unwinding the settlement agreements - although it could in due course be used for these
purposes.
POL-BSFF-0233130_0004
POL00408665
POL00408665
We have expressly referred to balancing transactions and Super User access in the attached, without drawing specific attention to
them. Is this transparent enough or should we go further?
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
<image001 jpg><http://www.bondickinson.com/>
Direct: I
Mobile: }
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image002.jpg><https://twitter.com/Bond_Dickinson><image003,jpg><http://www.linkedin.com/company/3098928trk=tyah>
www.bonddickinson.com<http://www.bonddickinson.com/<http://www.bonddickinson.com%3chttp:/www.bonddickinson.com/>>
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
arobins«
please notify
andrew.parson: sia
} as soon as possible and delete any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination,
distribution, publication or copying of this communication or attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked 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.
POL-BSFF-0233130_0005
POL00408665
POL00408665
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 by Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number
0C317661. Our registered office is 4 More London Riverside, London, SE1 2AU, where a list of members’ names is open to
inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our
VAT registration number is GB123393627.
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
<_DOC_33380020(1)_DRAFT Letter of Response 16 July 2016.docx>
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http:/Avww.symanteccloud.com
POL-BSFF-0233130_0006
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
POL00408665
POL00408665
POL-BSFF-0233130_0007