POL00461053
POL00461053
To: Chris Hodges} GRO — _ I
Ce: Rob BRIGHTWELL (DBT
Subject: Letter to Lord Chancellor
Attachment: 240109 Nick Read to Lord Chancellor - FINAL.pdf
Attachment: Lord Chancellor - attachment. pdf
Chris
Thank you for your email requesting sight of Nick Read’s letter to the Lord Chancellor, a copy of which is attached. I
have also attached a copy of the Peters and Peters note referred to in Nick’s letter. This note was not solicited by Post
Office and as can be seen, was sent to express the personal views of its author. Post Office are fully supportive of any
steps taken by Government to speed up the exoneration of those with wrongful convictions and to provide redress to
victims, with the attached information having been provided to inform that consideration.
In the interests of transparency, we are publishing the letter and the Peters & Peters’ note on our website shortly.
We stand ready to assist the Advisory Board and wider Government in any way we can. Similarly, Peters and Peters
would be happy to attend to answer any questions you or your colleagues may have.
Regards
Simon
Simon Recaldin
Remediation Unit Director
Post Offi
Street I London I EC2V 7ER
The information classification of this email is confidential unless otherwise stated.
From: Christopher Hodges {7
Sent: Wednesday, Februar
To: Simon Recaldin
Cc: Rob BRIGHTWELL (DBT)
Subject: POL: Letter to Lord Chancelior
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 Simon,
There has been some press comment about the letter that Nick Reid apparently wrote to the Lord Chancellor around
Christmas saying that PO (presumably on the advice of its independent KC team) concluded that 300 convictions were
safe. The media reports seem to us unclear about exactly what was contended by POL. Colleagues and I on the HCAB
are extremely interested to have some greater clarity on this, in the public interest, and also as a matter of
compensation.
POL00461053
POL00461053
The letter might have contended that, as the KCs told us when we met them, that on the basis of evidence available
to the PO, and on the basis of the existing law, PO would feel obliged to oppose an appeal in a particular case.
However, we believe that (a) wider evidence is now available, albeit not having been necessarily put before the CACD,
and that wider grounds are for overturning are also available, again albeit that the arguments have not yet been pout
before CACD.
Alternatively, the letter might have contended that PO has ‘separate/other’ cogent evidence in the 300 cases that
individuals were guilty.
May we please see the letter?
Thanks and kind regards,
Chris
Christopher Hodges OBE PhD FSALS FRSA
Emeritus Professor of Justice Systems, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford
‘Supernumerary Fellow, Wolfson College, Oxford
Chair, Regulatory Horizons Council
Chair, Horizon Compensation Advisory Board
Chair, Housing and Property Redress Group
Co Founder, Intemational Network for Delivery of Regulation