UKG100009211
UKGI00009211
From: Watson, Richard - UKGI[/O=HMT/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=E8568E9D213F4097A7A65F3DA4F63CC1-
WATSON, RICHARD (RWA]
Sent: Fri 15/03/2019 9:45:48 PM (UTC)
To: Cooper, Tom - UKGI! G RO
Cec: Russell, Mark - UKG} i
Subject: Fw: Post Office judgement
Forwarding Gareth's view as well.
kind regards
Richard
Sent from my BlackBerry — the most secure mobile device
From: Gareth.Evang,
Sent: 15 March 2019 9:25 pm
To: patrick.kilgarriff:
Subject: Re: Post Office judgement
T agree. Government has to give PO the wider context of any application. That could come from Alex or it could
come from Tom. Tom would be best to deliver that view but having delivered it he should withdraw. Crucially, It
would be painful if Tom was the casting vote either way. And that suggests he should not participate in the
decision
Gareth
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Kilgarriff, Patrick (Legal) ¢_
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 5:46 PM
To: Watson, Richard - UKGI; Evans, Gareth (BEIS)
Subject: RE: Post Office judgement
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
UKG100009211
UKGI00009211
Patrick Kilgarriff
BEIS Legal Director (Business & Industrial Strategy)
Government Legal Department
Lower Ground Floor, Orchard 3
1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET
— our online legal service
nano Original Message----- a
From: Watson, Richard - UKGI <
Sent: 15 March 2019 16:31. -becnnenennenns
To: Evans, Gareth (BEIS) <G
Ce: Kilgarriff, Patrick (Legali
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%7CGareth.Evans%40beis. gov.uk%7Cd69ac827ae02423a436 1 08d6a96e2c5 1 %7Ccbac700502¢143ebb4
97e6492d1b2dd8%7C0%7C0%7C63688268797885 1 855&sdata=5F ZFP V6M3 XfAH2 Y AOGkWNSEEuzP
sBIXaqgbRgVdigAE%3D&reserved=0
UKG100009211
UKGI00009211
From: Watson, Richard - UKGI
Sent: 15 March 2019 15:59
To: Cooper, Tom - UKGI <
Ce: Russell, Mark - UKGI <. GRO
coenenernnaennenensk>; 'Kilgarriff, Patrick (Legal)!
LL. ‘Evans, Gareth (BEIS)' <
Subject: RE: Post Office judgement
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.
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 Victoria Street I London I SW1H OET
we
https://emea01 .safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukgi.org.uk%2F&data=02
%7C01%7CGareth.Evans%40beis.gov.uk%7Cd69ac827a0e02423a436 1 08d6a96e2c5 1%7Ccbac700502¢ 143ebb4
97e6492d1b2dd8%7C0%7C0%7C63688268797885 1 855&sdata=5F ZFP V6M3 XfAH2 Y AOGkWNSEEuzP
sBlXaqgbRgVdigAE%3D&reserved=0
From: Cooper, Tom - UKGI
Sent: 15 March 2019 14:04
To: Alex Chisholm
Ce: Gavin Lambert
Russell, Mark - UKGI <1
Subject: Post Office judgement
UKG100009211
UKGI00009211
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://www.symanteccloud.com