POL00413697
POL00413697
Message
From:
Sent:
To: jan Henderson’
]; alan.bates¢ ‘Andy Holt!
$ ‘Angela Van-Den-Bogerd'
cc: First Administrative
Group/cn=Recipi
Subject: RE:
Importance: High
Dear Susan
I have spoken to Alan and he and I have a few concerns about the membership and voting on the working party so could
the Post Office numbers of members be specified with the right for substitution/ use of alternates and could I suggest
we restrict the number of votes not for each member but 2 to the Post Office, 2 to JFSA and a vote to release deadlock
to the Chairman? it is suggested as the primary investigators that 2°’ Sight should not vote as their role is as advocates
to present their findings. Otherwise every vote will be the Post Office’s majority decision.
Secondly it is a major concern that appearances or reviews before the Working Party should be in camera as a safe
environment for Complainants to voice their real concerns with fear of repercussions and that anything disclosed will
not be used against them. This is the same debate as was had about the “indemnity” letter earlier for the
“amnesty”. Rather than legal professional privilege should we not consider “confidentiality”?
The monthly meetings should be noted as either by telephone conference or face to face so this is not prescriptive and
allows the Chairman some discretion depending on case load and whether it is desirable to hear Complainants in person
as part of a “rejected for mediation” review process.
The objectives of the scheme are somewhat contradictory taken as a whole but individually make sense and perhaps the
role of the Working Party is to ensure that these objectives are met but there are no sanctions like “adverse inference”
for the failure to produce information or pleadings within the time limits set out or a financial penalty for non
compliance.
What does funded “predominantly” by PO and how it is envisaged that “value for money” will be measured?
Who will be responsible for keeping the records of the Scheme and at whose cost? How will they be verified and
checked? Who will have access to them?
What are the powers available to the Working Party? Can they order specific performance, suggest a financial remedy?
What is the initial budget (presumably for administering the Working Party} is not enough?
What professional risk to any members of this working party face? 2°° Sight and I have our own Pll policies and
presumably POL will cover any actions by its employees but what about others especially Alan? Should we consider a
clause that participants agree to waive any legal rights to pursue anyone or take out an insurance against that?
Sorry to have so many questions
Kay
Miss Kay Linnell
Kay Linnell & Co
Brick Kiln Cottage
The Avenue, Herriard
POL00413697
POL00413697
Near Basingstoke
Hampshire RG25 2PR
r Basingstoke, Hampshire RG25 2PR
n for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. if you are not the intended recipi
delete this email immediately, as any disclosure, copying or distribution is strictly prohibited
From: Susan Crichtoi
Sent: 14 August 2013 15:01
To: Simon Baker; Ian Henderson; alan.bates¢
Den-Bogerd .
Cc: Rodric Williams; ‘Parsons, Andrew’
Subject:
Ron Warmington’; Andy Holt; Angela Van-
Dear All ~ here is our first attempt at the terms of reference for the Working Group, grateful for views and input.
Thanks
Susan
Susan Crichton I General Counsel
London, ECLV 9HQ
JER SIS IODIDE IOIIO DIO IONISATION IO III
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient,
you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in
error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.