POL00408673
POL00408673
From:
Sent:
To:
Ce:
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.F1D26859284]
Attachment: Review of Post Office Ltd Criminal Prosecutions - Brian Altman QC - July 2016.pdf
Dear Andy
Please find attached the final theft/false accounting review document. If you think there is anything in it that
requires change or correction, please do let me know as soon as you are able, and I'll happily revise it and re-
submit the review document.
Many thanks.
Best wishes,
Brian
Brian Altman QC
Chambers of William Clegg QC
2 Bedford Row
London WC1R 4BU
personal websit.
cham i
on to whom it is addressed. It r
on in re you have received this information in error, please
he responsibility of the recipient that this email is
ay from receipt or use of it.
ontain privileged and confidential information. If you are not
onit. I
rus-free and no
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 22 July 2016 13:47
To: Brian Altman
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: RE: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Yes of course.
A
Andrew Parsons
POL00408673
POL00408673
Partner
From: Brian Altman
Sent: 22/07/2016 13:33
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Andy
Thank you.
Last thing: will it be alright to deliver my review document to you on Monday which is the date Paul first
asked me to work towards?
Brian
Brian Altman QC
Chambers of William Clegg QC
2 Bedford Row
London WC1R 4BU
personal websit
chambers.website: www.2hedfordu:
email
w.co.uk
This message is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not
the intended recipient you must not read, copy, distribute, discuss or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this information in error, please
notify me as soon as possible on the above telephone number. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the recipient that this email is virus-free and no
responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising way from receipt or use of it.
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 22 July 2016 12:50
To: Brian Altman
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: RE: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Brian
Thank you (and for your other comments on the LOR). Very helpful.
I'm not particularly worried about releasing the investigation guidelines - their content is pretty benign. I just wanted to
make sure that we were not waiving some form of privilege. In this regard, your advice is just what was needed.
Kind regards
Andy
POL00408673
POL00408673
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brian Altman [mailto;_
Sent: 22 July 2016 10:50
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Andy
I have realised you didn't call me about this yesterday. I am available for a chat today if you wish. It may
help however if I set out some thoughts here for you:
1. I do not think that investigation guidelines can attract privilege (advice or litigation) for the simple
reason that these are not communications between a client and his lawyer made under conditions of
confidentiality for the purposes of enabling the client to seek, or the lawyer to give, legal advice or
assistance in a relevant legal context, or advice or assistance given in the context of litigation.
2. If CK gave advice about "privilege" attaching to "investigative techniques" then I suspect they may
have been speaking about public interest immunity (PII). It was for this reason I asked for the source of
the advice.
3. In the criminal environment, disclosure is subject to the single test in s.3 of the CPIA which I set out
for you in my email this morning on the topic of the LOR. If the material doesn't pass the test then it is
not disclosable (subject to application being made by the defence and the judge ruling upon it).
4. If in civil litigation the test for disclosure is also, in effect, relevance/materiality to the issues in the
case, then challenging the relevance/materiality of such guidelines may, I suppose, be one way, pro
tem, of withholding disclosure of them.
5. 1am unsure if I have read the investigation guidelines you are referring to; it is possible I read them
a long time ago when advising about such guidelines in one of my 2013 review documents. Either
way I'd be surprised if in the criminal arena, if relevant and prima facie disclosable, they would be
regarded as so sensitive as to indicate that could be withheld from disclosure on grounds they
reveal matters relating to an important public interest, namely, POL's security team's investigative
techniques.
6. At all events, I seriously doubt that POL could make a Pll application in such circumstances as the
first question that arises is whether a private prosecutor can invoke public interest immunity. I'd be
interested to know if POL has ever made a PII application in any case. Be that as it may, the issue is
really whether the material is so sensitive that disclosure would damage a public interest.
1am sorry that this will not assist you in holding off a disclosure request for now by claiming privilege. But I
hope that my other thoughts about it may do so, such as asserting (if it is correct to do so in the civil arena)
POL00408673
POL00408673
that the guidelines are not material to any known or anticipated issue in the case.
Brian
Brian Altman QC
Chambers of William Clegg QC
2 Bedford Row
London WC1R 4BU
personal website:
This message is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not
the intended recipient you must not read, copy, distribute, discuss or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this information in error, please
notify me as soon as possible on the above telephone number. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the recipient that this email is virus-free and no
responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use of it.
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 18 July 2016 18:16
To: Brian Altman
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: RE: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Brian
Apologies — forgot one point.
We've been asked to disclose "Post Office's investigation guidelines" which we presume to be a reference to any
investigation guidelines followed by the Security Team when looking into suspected criminal activity. I recall someone
(probably CK) saying that information about investigative techniques are generally privileged.
We are not obliged to give disclosure of documents at this stage. If the above understanding is broadly applicable, my
preferred approach would be to say that documents of this type might be be privileged and therefore we are not
disclosing them.
If you have 5 minutes at some point this week, please could we discuss whether such documents might be covered by
privilege?
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
POL00408673
POL00408673
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brian Altman [mailtof
Sent: 18 July 2016 17:26
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Prime, Amy
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Will do
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2016, at 17:23, Parsons, Andrew ¢ wrote:
Brian
As mentioned previously, would you mind reviewing our draft Letter of Response (LOR) that we have
prepared for the Group Litigation with the postmasters?
The LOR is long, so please do not review the whole thing. We have highlighted below all the references
to prosecutions or criminal law matters — please could you review these sections?
5(F): Factual Allegations: criminal investigations and prosecutions (paragraphs 5.48 to 5.79)
6(D): Misfeasance in public office (paragraphs 6.30 to 6.32)
6(E): Malicious Prosecution (paragraphs 6.33 to 6.42)
8(B): Barred claims: criminal cases (paragraphs 8.8 to 8.12)
Schedule 4: Section 8: False accounting (8.1 — 8.6)
Some of these sections mention factual matters that are not within your knowledge so we're not asking
for your sign off of these sections. I should however be grateful if you could flag whether we've
misstated any of the criminal law concepts. All other comments of course welcomed.
Just in case you need it, I've attached the Letter of Claim to which our letter responds. No need to
review the LOC but you've got it just in case.
If possible, comments / amendments by the end of this week would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
bret GRO
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
POL00408673
POL00408673
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged and protected by law. baltmar
authorised to access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not baltmarl GRO }, please notify andrew.parsons}
soon as possible and delete any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distr 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.
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,
<_DOC_33380020(1) DRAFT Letter of Response 16 July 2016.docx>
<28.04.16 - Letter of Claim (8).pdf>