POL00460827
POL00460827
From: Nick Read,
Sent: Mon 08/01/2024 3:13:40 PM (UTC)
To: Henry Staunton ( GRO I
Ce: Benjamin Tidswellf- i
Subject: FW: Ministerial consideration of POL's role in appeals [PP-DOCS.FID71323]
Henry,
As you will be experiencing in the media there is much coverage on how the PM and Govt intend to speed
up the Appeals process and compensation more broadly...this is an interesting counter balance to the
momentum that has been gathering post the ITV drama.
Nick
Nick Read
Group CEO
100 Wood Street
London EC2V 7AN
postoffice.co.uk
From: Nick Vamos
Sent: 07 January 2024 1:
To: Simon Recaldin
Munden <_
Cc: Charlotte Tregunna ¢_. GRO Maria Cronin <__
Subject: Ministerial consideration of POL's role in appeals [PP-DOCS.FID71323]
; Nicola
com>
Caution: This email has been sent by an external contact. Please take care when clicking links or opening
attachments. When in doubt, please use the "Report Phishing" button.
Dear all
I wasn’t sure who within POL currently is engaged on this issue but I assume you all are.
I have been listening with growing concern over the weekend to the reports that Alex Chalk is actively
considering “stripping POL of its role” in appeals and/or using legislation to overturn every conviction. I
assume he is considering the HCAB recommendations in their 14 December letter and attachment. My
concern is not that the Government will implement any of the recommendations, but that it will do so ona
false basis because it does not have all the relevant information and advice it needs to determine whether it
will increase the number of successful appeals.
The most significant issue is that all the HCAB recommendations and the recent media and political
response is based on the false assumption that there are 700 wrongful convictions, therefore there are
POL00460827
POL00460827
hundreds of miscarriages of justice still out there whose route to justice is somehow being thwarted by POL
and ‘the system’. In reality, it is highly likely that the vast majority of people who have not yet appealed
were, in fact, guilty as charged and were safely convicted. Unless this is made clear to the Government, it
risks making incredibly important and expensive decisions on a completely false premise. I am sure that this
point has been or is being made to whoever is briefing Alex Chalk, but I also know that points can be
misunderstood or watered down by the time they reach a Minister, and this is one point that cannot be
made strongly enough.
The second issue, which is not really for POL to make, but it should make it if no-one else will, is that based
on its conduct of appeals so far the CPS is unlikely to take a more generous approach than POL and, if
anything, will take a more restrictive view.
The third issue is that there are still many cases that need to go via the CCRC which, like the CPS, is
completely independent and has already explained that it has rejected 31 applications based on clear
confessions and/or other corroborating evidence of guilt. It could revisit those decisions but, unless there is
further evidence or legislation is used to either bypass the CCRC or change the test it applies, those
decisions aren't going to change.
The fourth issue is the unspoken assumption that the CACD would overturn more convictions if only POL
would let it, or it considered different arguments or evidence. There is no basis for thinking that the CACD
will depart from Hamilton or that it will allow appeals if they would only come forward or if, contrary to
expectations, the CPS concedes appeals which POL would not. The HCAB recommendations assume that
only psychological barriers are preventing hundreds of PFAs from appealing and that if those PFAs came
forward then, given the proper evidence, the CACD would allow the appeals. However, this ‘trauma’ theory
only works if hundreds of innocent PFAs made false confessions. Even if that is true (which is very doubtful),
because the burden is on the appellant, the CACD will expect them to give evidence on oath to that effect
which it can then consider in reaching its decision. No-one has been prevented from doing that in any
appeal to date. Several have withdrawn their appeals when it became clear that this is what they needed to
do. The Government can't change the basic principles and procedures in the CACD: if a PFA was convicted
based on a false confession and in fact suffered unexplained shortfalls then at some point they are going to
need to explain that to a Court.
There are many other legal, procedural and practical points that the Government and CPS should consider
before making any decisions, such as:
« Should the PCDE be completely re-done given the criticism that the Hamilton test is too narrow
because the CACD did not see all the relevant material?
« If not, should POL still be responsible for searching the new repositories and/or conducting case-
specific further enquiries in any given appeal?
« Should POL continue to liaise with NPPs on the current basis?
Please let us know if you need assistance from P&P in ensuring that the Government has a clear and
comprehensive picture of all the relevant issues in its current decision-making process. If it does not, or
they are not presented clearly, I am very concerned that the outcome of that decision-making process will
not be in the interests of justice, PFAs or POL.
Kind regards
Nick
POL00460827
POL00460827
Nick Vamos
Partner and Head of Business Crime
For and on behalf of Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP
15 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1BW I Tel
Mob: t