WBONO0000431
WBON0000431
From: "Parsons, Andre
To: "Loraine, Paul" }
Subject: RE: LOR [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:54:04 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001 jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg; image004.jpg; image005.jpg; image006.jpg;
image007.jpg
Comments below in BIB
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Direct:
Mobile: I
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Loraine, Paul [mailt
Sent: 13 July 2016 11:51
To: Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: LOR [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Andy
Aside from the big gaps on implied terms / fiduciary and tortious duties, here are the points I don’t think we have
covered. Green highlighting means we are waiting for info from CMS, yellow means Jonny Gribben is investigating.
Main body of LoC
- Para 80 - “Horizon itself significantly changed how the claimants were required and able to work in their
branches and significantly limited their ability to access, identify obtain and reconcile transaction records and
themselves investigate any alleged shortfalls. 10 we want to dispel this myth that life was rosy before
Horizon — shortfalls presumably still occurred in the old world? Can we use any stats?
- Para 101.3 — “several instances where claimants under pressure to resign” — we haven't specifically refuted
=
2
- Para 101.5 — “several instances of POL not responding to or rejecting applications of prospective purchasers of
branches” — again, not specifically refuted
it
WBD_000301.000001
WBONO0000431
WBON0000431
Questions in Appendix
- Questions 5, 6 and 7 on the OSA are not answered but we are agreeing not to enforce s.16 so these questions
fall away
- Question 8 is not answered — were the documents provided by SS returned to BIS? Nolthey Weren't but
irrelevant so don't address
- Question 19 — while we deal with the minutes in respect of the Misra case we don’t answer part 2 of the
question — whether those minutes were disclosed to any SPMR in the context of an investigation into a
shortfall or an enquiry by a SMPR about any such shortfall
- Question 22 — we don’t say whether POL has disclosed any info after a prosecution has concluded which may
undermine its prosecution or support the defendant's case.
On your point 2 below, Mark and Mel have confirmed that this happened in Jo Hamilton's case. Mel thinks it was an
exchange of letters between the lawyers in which the prosecution lawyers accepted Hamilton's lawyers suggestion of
dropping the theft charge for a guilty plea to FA on the basis that Hamilton accepted responsibility (ie. did not blame
Horizon). I am trying to locate these letters (I've emailed you separately on this in case you've seen them).
POL cannot say whether this promise not to claim H errors was made in other cases in the context of a plea bargain. It
is not for us to investigate every criminal case — surely Freeths need to be more specific.
Thanks
Paul
Paul Loraine
Solicitor
Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
PROUD TO SUPPORT
splhasdidatad
GREAT
[BRITAIN & NORTHERN IRELAND
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:
Sent: 10 July 2016 13:15
To: Loraine, Paul
Subject: LOR [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Paul
I've sent a re-draft of the LOR to Tony.
WBD_000301.000002
WBONO0000431
WBON0000431
Would you mind:
1. Rev-viewing the LOC and checking we have covered every point.
2. Addressing Q16 at the back of the LOC which I don't think we have answered: "Please confirm if it is correct
that some Subpostmasters were required, as part of a plea bargain in criminal proceedings, not to mention
potential errors in Horizon publicly, including to the court. If not, please explain whether any materially
similar or related undertakings were required."
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Siin)
www.bonddickinson.com
WBD_000301.000003