SUBS0000057
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
On behalf of Core Participants
Tracy Felstead, Seema Misra, and Janet Skinner
Annex to Submissions on Compensation: 24" June, 2022
1. We ask that we may be permitted to amend our submission to this extent and apologise
for any inconvenience.
2. The process for the compensation of Category B claimants is subject to complex issues
of real and apparent conflicts of interest, which may be without precedent.
3. The Post Office’s conduct enabled a culture of secrecy to flourish, actively or passively
resulting in a multitude of systematic failures in the performance of their duties, in both
Criminal and Civil litigation.
4. It failed repeatedly to discharge its responsibilities before the Criminal and the Civil
courts over many years. These failures may possibly, after impartial investigation, give
rise to criminal proceedings.
5. That prospect is not fanciful, because the Post Office has violated so many norms,
ethical, evidential, procedural, and substantive, before the courts, that it is likely to be
found to have acted in bad faith towards the SPMs in both criminal and civil litigation.
The true depth of its wrongdoing is yet to be plumbed but that which is already known
is so disturbing that a police investigation is not to be lightly dismissed.
6. The question we posed, in our submission on compensation, was how could it sensibly
be thought appropriate that the Post Office and its lawyers, HSF, should continue to
play any part in the determination of “fair compensation” given:
a. The protracted history of the Post Office’s profound wrongdoing before the
Courts; and
b. The manifestly unfair contract of settlement HSF negotiated on its behalf.
7. The question (after much thought) was answered purely on pragmatic grounds, namely
that HSF should continue to act on the Post Office’s behalf for reasons of expediency
alone, given that the prospect of their removal would lead to increased costs, profound
SUBS0000057_0001
SUBS0000057
uncertainty, and further protracted delay, all of which would be deleterious to the Post
Office’s long-suffering victims.
8. This position, reluctantly arrived at, may have failed to give due weight to:
a. The appearance of justice, so far as a conflict of interest;
b. The grave turpitude attending the conduct of the Post Office; and
c. The fact that HSF would still be on the record acting as the Post Office’s
solicitors (‘the retainer’.)
9. The consequences resulting from the continuing retainer would be (on reflection) not
merely unpalatable (which was evident from the outset) but also unacceptable. This is
because HSF would remain contractually and professionally bound to act in the best
interests of the Post Office, and their professional duty would be to protect the Post
Office’s interests at the expense of the claimants.
10. Moreover, given that the Post Office, as currently envisaged, remains responsible for
the determination of what would be fair compensation in all the circumstances, an
inveterate conflict of interest remains at the heart of this process, which is not merely
procedural but substantive, in that fairness cannot be objectively ascertained.
11. The principles of natural justice, we submit, militate in favour of the following:
The Post Office should terminate the continuing retainer of HSF; and
Expressly consent to/permit HSF to be retained by BEIS;
c. This authority should disclaim any duty of confidence HSF was bound by
during the currency of its retainer by the Post Office, and indemnify HSF in
respect of any advice it provides to BEIS, subsequent to the termination of that
retainer;
d. Previous assurances or undertakings by the Post Office as to its waiver of legal
professional privilege, and the extent of that waiver, should not be withdrawn;
e. BEIS should retain HSF immediately upon the Post Office giving consent.
oP
12. Much will depend on a spirit of candour, which would enable this proposal to be
implemented swiftly. HSF would then be retained for both ‘final’ and ‘further’
compensation claimants. Disclosure problems should not be insurmountable given that
BEIS and Her Majesty’s Treasury owns the Post Office.
13. We submit these revised proposals having further reflected on the propriety of the Post
Office’s continuing role, even as a mere conduit for compensation, given the
professional obligations HSF owes towards it. As the monies earmarked for
compensation are wholly derived from public funds, our revised submission would
rationalise the compensation process, and guarantee that Government (which has
repeatedly stated that the compensation process should be full, fair and fast) has
oversight and control of it.
14. Should this submission not prove workable, as a consequence of obstruction by the
Post Office, or any other body, that would be unfortunate. In such regrettable
circumstances, we would stand on our original submission of 22" June.
SUBS0000057_0002
Edward Henry QC
Mountford Chambers
Flora Page
23 ES Chambers
Hodge Jones & Allen solicitors
24 June 2022
SUBS0000057
SUBS0000057_0003