UKG100009208
UKGI00009208
From: Watson, Richard - UKGI[/O=HMT/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=E8568E9D213F4097A7A65F3DA4F63CC1-
WATSON, RICHARD (RWA]
Sent: Fri 15/03/2019 7:16:25 PM (UTC)
To: Cooper, Tom - UKGIE~
Cec: Russell, Mark - UKGII_
Subject: FW: Post Office judgement
Tom
To see the view of the BEIS Legal Director in the below email on your role.
Perhaps I can get your thoughts on Monday before I email Jane as we discussed earlier. I have already explained to her
that the shareholder should not be involved in the decision and indicated that I was considering with you the extent to
which you should be involved. I think Patrick's view is a sensible one i.e. flag the things the board need to be cognisant of
but not to be part of the formal board decision.
You have my numbers if you want to discuss over the weekend.
Kind regards
Richard
Richard WatsonIGeneral Counsel
UK Government Investments
1 Victoria Street I London I SW1H OET
wynenen-K
W: https://www.ukgi.or, “uk/
-----Original Message-----
From: Kilgarriff, Patrick (Legal) [mailt
Sent: 15 March 2019 17:47
To: Watson, Richard - UKGI
Subject: RE: Post Office judgement
; Evans, Gareth (BEIS) SSS GRO
Richard, Gareth
I don't think I would want to say Government NEVER consider a bias challenge - but in the sense of never say never.
I would have thought the function of the UKGI director might be to ensure the Board fully realised the seriousness of what
was proposed including the impact on the shareholder (and the difficulties of distinguishing between strategic direction
and operational matters in Parliament and the media) as well as the wider litigation strategy on Horizon, that the Board
had taken and properly considered legal advice - not a step to take on finely based merits, and finally had reflected
properly on whether there was bias or (painful as it is) inferences drawn ultimately properly from hearing the evidence
expressed in pithy and robust language. If the UKGI director has done that, I would agree s/he may stand back from the
decision to take the challenge or not
Patrick
Patrick Kilgarriff
BEIS Legal Director (Business & Industrial Strategy) Government Legal Department
Lower Ground Floor, Orchard 3
1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET
UKG100009208
UKGI00009208
PA to BEIS Legal Di
i __GRO
Angelina Wi
— our online legal service
From: Watson, Richard - UKGI <!
Sent: 15 March 2019 16:31
To: Evans, Gareth (BEIS)
Ce: Kilgarriff, Patrick (Legal)
Subject: RE: Post Office judgement
Gareth, Patrick,
Would you agree that the UKGI Director on POL's board should not be involved in any decision by the company about a
recusal application?
While I'm not convinced that there is a conflict of interest I think that given the concern, rightly, that HMG should not be
seen as questioning the independence and integrity of the judiciary it feels presentationally difficult for a director
appointed by the shareholder to be involved in the decision. Put another way it seems preferable that the UKGI Director
is not involved.
Kind regards
Richard
Richard WatsonIGeneral Counsel
UK Government Investments
https://emea01 .safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F %2Fwww.ukgi.org.uk%2F&data=02%7C01%7C.
patrick. kilgarriff%40beis. gov.uk%7 COea2b9daf3ab4f5e86b808d6a96392e8%7 Ccbac700502c143ebb497e6492d1b2dd8%
7C0%7C0%7C636882642459058555&sdata=k526fRI7 RWkVD7VirfeDIC QteY yy6Fuzu1 vHmd3SXQA%3D&rese
tved=0
-----Original Message-----
From: Watson, Richard - UKGI
Sent: 15 March 2019 15:59
To: Cooper, Tom - UK‘
Cc: Russell, Mark - UK!
‘Evans, Gareth (BEIS)'
Subject: RE: Post Office
Kilgarriff, Patrick (Legal)'
Tom
Not including Alex or Gavin in this email but copying in Patrick and Gareth from BEIS legal with whom I have raised the
issue about a possible recusal application on the grounds of bias. I shared with them Jane's email and the accompanying
note from Lord Neuberger and they have engaged on this issue at a high level in the Government Legal Department.
The particular concern here is anything that could be seen as HMG not upholding the independence and integrity of the
judiciary.
UKG100009208
UKGI00009208
While we think it is OK for Alex to be informed we don't not consider the shareholder should be involved in a decision
whether or not to make a recusal application. That is properly a matter for the POL board. I am, of course, happy to
assist you as a Director on the board in carrying out your role.
Kind regards
Richard
Richard WatsonIGeneral Counsel
UK Government Investments
1
T
E
W:
https://emea01 .safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukgi.org.uk%2F&data=02%7C01%7C
patrick. kilgarriff%40beis.gov.uk%7COea2b9daf3ab4 f5e86b808d6a96392e8% 7 Ccbac700502c143ebb497e6492d1b2dd8%
7C0%7C0%7C636882642459058555&sdata=k526fRiI7 RwkVD7VirfeDICQteY yy6Fuzu1 vVHmd3SXQA%3D&rese
tved=0
-----Original Message-----
From: Cooper, Tom - UKGI
Sent: 15 March 2019 14:04 °
To: Alex Chisholm =~
Cc: Gavin Lambert +.
Mark - UKGI I
Subject: Post Office judgement
>; Russell,
Alex
The judgement in the first trial is out and it is adverse to POL. You'll get the briefing by 3pm.
There are a couple of things that I need to brief you on and on which POL is asking for a quick decision. It’s a high profile
decision to do with handling the case with significant implications for BEIS.
Do you have time for a call later today or over the weekend?
Tom
Sent from my iPhon
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
the email.
This footnote also confirms that our email communications may be monitored to ensure the secure and effective
operation of our systems and for other lawful purposes, and that this email has been swept for malware and viruses.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http:/Awww.symanteccloud.com