WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
From: "Parsons, Andrew" <
To: "Loraine, Paul" +
Subject: FW: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:51:12 +0100
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Review_of_Post_Office_Ltd_Criminal_Prosecutions_-_Brian_Altman_QC_-
_July_2016.pdf
Inline-Images: image001 jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg; imaged4debf.JPG; imagedff646.PNG;
image50cfac.PNG
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brian Altman [mailto}”
Sent: 26 July 2016 13:13
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom; Matthews, Gavin
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Thank you Andy.
Herewith final review document.
I've changed the date to today's date to ensure that there's no confusion between drafts, and have made a
couple of other tweaks in it by adding "adopts and applies" where I deal with POL's adoption of the Code.
I also changed the paragraph number in one footnote that referred back to the paragraph where I dealt
with offering no evidence: formerly para 104, now 105.
WBD_000340.000001
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
I'll await further instructions on BTs after August.
Brian
Brian Altman QC
Chambers of William Clegg QC
2 Bedford Row
London WCIR 4BU
personal website: www.brianaltmange-barrister.com
chambers website: www.2bedfordrow.co.uk
This message is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient you must not read, copy, distribute, discuss or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this information in error,
please notify me as soon as possible on the above telephone number. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the recipient that this email is virus-free and
no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use of it.
From: Parsons, Andrew ¢ GRO >
Sent: 26 July 2016 12:36 °
To: Brian Altman
Ce: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom; Matthews, Gavin
Subject: RE: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.FID26859284]
Brian
Thanks.
Understood on the clarification point.
On the balancing transaction point — we will in due course be seeking your views on this. Deloitte is reviewing the
technical aspects of the balancing transaction process and their report is due in August. We'll then be in touch about
getting your further input. In light of this, I don't believe that your introductory paras need changing.
I'm happy with your proposed wording on the group litigation.
WBD_000340.000002
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brian Altman [mailtoi
Sent: 26 July 2016 12:24
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom; Matthews, Gavin
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Dear Andy
Thank you for your email. There is no pattern at all to POL's approach to cases (I'd be surprised if there
were), hence my conclusion at para 202 of the review and my emphasis during my review of the use by
POL of independent counsel.
Clarification issue
My section on abuse of process relates only to the criminal process. Bear in mind it was only during my
review that I became aware of the fact and terms of the group claim. So my observations when first written
did not have in mind the civil litigation. Against that background, my purpose in saying what I did at my para
22 was to observe that the mere fact that a prosecutor does not follow/misapplies relevant guidance or
policy is no ground to conclude there has been an abuse of the process. After all it may just be because the
WBD_000340.000003
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
individual is not good at his job or is negligent or simply made a decision no other reasonable prosecutor
would have made.
However, by way of important contradistinction, a wholesale, institutional policy to avoid the Code (which
POL at all times and for all purposes otherwise adopts and applies) to charge substantive offences like theft
where there is absolutely no basis to do so, only to secure pleas to "lesser" charges would not only amount
to a deliberate policy of disapplication of the Code (which POL otherwise adopts and applies) but also
would amount to a manipulative policy to misuse the criminal justice system to POL's own ends. That was
the distinction I was seeking to make. This would not be a failure properly to select appropriate charges;
this would be a deliberate policy to select inappropriate charges.
You ask whether it is alright to say in the LOR that POL is not legally bound by the Code without creating a
risk of an abuse of the process. I assume by this you mean the risk of abuse in future criminal
prosecutions? If so, in light of what I've said above, the simple answer is 'yes'.
At your para 5.53 of the LOR you make the point, based on authority, that POL is not legally bound by the
Code. But the fact is POL does adopt and apply it in all its prosecution decisions. if you wish to nail the
point, and assuming you've not done so elsewhere in the LOR, it might be wise to add that although not
legally bound by it, POL has adopted and does apply the Code to its charging decisions. The real point is
that there was no wholesale policy to disapply the Code as and when it suited POL's own ends, which is the
central allegation.
Request issue
I did not know that the Swift/Knight review had been shut down.
May I ask does that mean I will not be asked to review the balancing transactions issue as was
recommended (see my paras 2-17)? If so, do I need to re-write the introductory section about that? If
so, should I ignore it completely or include it, as it is, only to say it's no longer required (if that's correct)?
I'm a little confused so would welcome your thoughts on it asap and before final sign-off.
As for the extra paragraph you've asked me to include, I'm happy to do so, but with a few tweaks (also using
my conventions). Are you happy with:
"Since receiving these instructions, a group civil claim has been filed against POL in which allegations have
been made that are related to the same subject matter as was reviewed by Messrs Swift QC and Knight.
The review commissioned by Mr Parker has subsequently been brought to a close, and POL is actively
WBD_000340.000004
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
defending the civil claim. I have, however, been instructed to continue with the work requested by Mr
Williams for the purpose of assisting POL's defence of the civil proceedings."
As soon as I hear from you, I'll revise the draft and re-submit it.
Best wishes,
Brian
Brian Altman QC
Chambers of William Clegg QC
2 Bedford Row
London WCIR 4BU
personal website: www.brianaltmange-barrister.com
chambers website: www.2bedfordrow.co.uk
This message is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient you must not read, copy, distribute, discuss or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this information in error,
please notify me as soon as possible on the above telephone number. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the recipient that this email is virus-free and
no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use of it.
From: Parsons, Andrew <{ GRO >
Sent: 26 July 2016 11:18 _ ~
To: Brian Altman
Ce: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom; Matthews, Gavin
Subject: RE: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.FID26859284]
Brian
Thank you. It is striking quite how differently each prosecution was conducted and this makes it very difficult to see
any pattern that would suggest a policy of improperly prosecuting postmasters.
Before I send this to Post Office, I have one point of clarification and one request.
Point of clarification: Paragraph 22
WBD_000340.000005
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
In our Letter of Response we have said that POL is not bound by the Code, and therefore not bound by the sufficiency
of evidence and public interest tests. Nevertheless, we say, Post Office is not entitled to conduct a malicious
prosecution, meaning a prosecution must be based on "reasonable and probable cause" and have a legitimate (non-
malicious) purpose.
My reading of paragraph 22 is that not following the Code is not, in itself, grounds for an abuse of process. The abuse
comes when proceeding with a prosecution without sufficient evidence (regardless of whether that threshold of
evidence is judged against the standards of the Code or the standards of malicious prosecution).
The distinction is clearer when considering the motivation for a prosecution. On face value, the threshold for malicious
prosecution appears lower than the threshold for the Code ie. the Code requires a public interest motivation whereas
malicious prosecution simply requires a motivation that is not malicious.
My point of clarification is: are we ok to say in the Letter of Response that POL is not bound by the Code (whilst
maintaining that there was sufficient evidence and a legitimate reason for each prosecution) without creating a risk of
an abuse of process argument?
Initially, Rodric commissioned your work off the back of Tim Parker's review. That review has now been closed down
and the work streams (ie. your report, the work by Deloitte, etc.) are now being conducted to support the defence of
the Group Action. Would you mind adding a paragraph to this effect?
I ask because if your review is for the purpose of assisting with the civil litigation, it attracts litigation privilege.
Litigation privilege in civil claims is wider than legal advice privilege and would cover any internal discussions at Post
Office about your advice (such discussions would arguably not be covered by Legal Advice privilege).
I have proposed some possible wording below that could be slotted in after paragraph 7 — please feel free to re-phrase
as you see fit:
"Since receiving these instructions, a civil claim has been filed against Post Office making allegations that are related
to the same subject matter as the recommendations identified by Messrs Swift QC and Knight. The review of Mr
Parker has subsequently been brought to a close and Post Office are actively defending the civil claim. I have
however been instructed to continue with the work requested by Mr Williams for the purpose of assisting Post Office's
defence of the civil proceedings."
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
WBD_000340.000006
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
Direct:
Mobile:
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin}
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brian Altman [mailto:
Sent: 25 July 2016 11:48
To: Parsons, Andrew; Matthews, Gavin
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Dear Andy
Please find attached the final theft/false accounting review document. If you think there is anything in
it that requires change or correction, please do let me know as soon as you are able, and I'll happily revise
it and re-submit the review document.
Many thanks.
Best wishes,
Brian
Brian Altman QC
Chambers of William Clegg QC
2 Bedford Row
WBD_000340.000007
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
London WCIR 4BU
personal website: www.brianaltmange-barrister.com
chambers website: www.2bedfordrow.co.uk
This message is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient you must not read, copy, distribute, discuss or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this information in error,
please notify me as soon as possible on the above telephone number. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the recipient that this email is virus-free and
no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use of it
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 22 July 2016 13:47 ~~
To: Brian Altman
Ce: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: RE: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.FID26859284]
Yes of course.
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bond Dickinson LLP
From: Brian Altman
Sent: 22/07/2016 13:33
To: Parsons, Andrew
Ce: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.FID26859284]
Andy
Thank you.
Last thing: will it be alright to deliver my review document to you on Monday which is the date Paul first
asked me to work towards?
Brian
WBD_000340.000008
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
Brian Altman QC
Chambers of William Clegg QC
2 Bedford Row
London WCIR 4BU
personal website: www.brianaltmange-barrister.com
chambers website: www.2bedfordrow.co.uk_
email.
wt GRO
This message is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient you must not read, copy, distribute, discuss or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this information in error,
please notify me as soon as possible on the above telephone number. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the recipient that this email is virus-free and
No responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use of it.
From: Parsons, Andrew <
Sent: 22 July 2016 12:50
To: Brian Altman
Ce: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: RE: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A .FID26859284]
>
Brian
Thank you (and for your other comments on the LOR). Very helpful.
I'm not particularly worried about releasing the investigation guidelines - their content is pretty benign. I just wanted to
make sure that we were not waiving some form of privilege. In this regard, your advice is just what was needed.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bind Didingow
WBD_000340.000009
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
Mobile:
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brian Altman [mailt«
Sent: 22 July 2016 10:50
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Andy
I have realised you didn't call me about this yesterday. I am available for a chat today if you wish. It may
help however if I set out some thoughts here for you:
1. I do not think that investigation guidelines can attract privilege (advice or litigation) for the simple
reason that these are not communications between a client and his lawyer made under conditions of
confidentiality for the purposes of enabling the client to seek, or the lawyer to give, legal advice or
assistance in a relevant legal context, or advice or assistance given in the context of litigation.
2. If CK gave advice about "privilege" attaching to "investigative techniques" then I suspect they may
have been speaking about public interest immunity (PII). It was for this reason I asked for the source
of the advice.
3. In the criminal environment, disclosure is subject to the single test in s.3 of the CPIA which I set out
for you in my email this morning on the topic of the LOR. If the material doesn't pass the test then it is
not disclosable (subject to application being made by the defence and the judge ruling upon it).
4. If in civil litigation the test for disclosure is also, in effect, relevance/materiality to the issues in the
case, then challenging the relevance/materiality of such guidelines may, I suppose, be one way, pro
tem, of withholding disclosure of them.
5. 1am unsure if I have read the investigation guidelines you are referring to; it is possible I read them a
long time ago when advising about such guidelines in one of my 2013 review documents. Either
way I'd be surprised if in the criminal arena, if relevant and prima facie disclosable, they would be
regarded as so sensitive as to indicate that could be withheld from disclosure on grounds they
reveal matters relating to an important public interest, namely, POL's security team's investigative
techniques.
6. At all events, I seriously doubt that POL could make a PII application in such circumstances as the
first question that arises is whether a private prosecutor can invoke public interest immunity. I'd be
interested to know if POL has ever made a PII application in any case. Be that as it may, the issue is
really whether the material is so sensitive that disclosure would damage a public interest.
WBD_000340.000010
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
lam sorry that this will not assist you in holding off a disclosure request for now by claiming privilege. But I
hope that my other thoughts about it may do so, such as asserting (if it is correct to do so in the civil arena)
that the guidelines are not material to any known or anticipated issue in the case.
Brian
Brian Altman QC
Chambers of William Clegg QC
2 Bedford Row
London WCIR 4BU.
personal website: www,brianaltmange-barrister.com
chambers website: www.2bedfordrow.co.uk
This message is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient you must not read, copy, distribute, discuss or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this information in error,
please notify me as soon as possible on the above telephone number. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the recipient that this email is virus-free and
no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use of it.
From: Parsons, Andrew < ” GRO
Sent: 18 July 2016 18:16
To: Brian Altman
Ce: Prime, Amy; Porter, Tom
Subject: RE: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-
4A.FID26859284]
Brian
Apologies — forgot one point.
We've been asked to disclose "Post Office's investigation guidelines" which we presume to be a reference to any
investigation guidelines followed by the Security Team when looking into suspected criminal activity. I recall someone
(probably CK) saying that information about investigative techniques are generally privileged.
WBD_000340.000011
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
We are not obliged to give disclosure of documents at this stage. If the above understanding is broadly applicable, my
preferred approach would be to say that documents of this type might be be privileged and therefore we are not
disclosing them.
If you have 5 minutes at some point this week, please could we discuss whether such documents might be covered by
privilege?
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Direct:
Mobile:
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Siin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brian Altman [mailto}
Sent: 18 July 2016 17:26 ©
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Prime, Amy
Subject: Re: Letter of Response to the Group Litigation - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Will do
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2016, at 17:23, Parsons, Andrew i __.... _GRO > wrote:
Brian
WBD_000340.000012
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
As mentioned previously, would you mind reviewing our draft Letter of Response (LOR) that we have prepared for
the Group Litigation with the postmasters?
The LOR is long, so please do not review the whole thing. We have highlighted below all the references to
prosecutions or criminal law matters — please could you review these sections?
5(F): Factual Allegations: criminal investigations and prosecutions (paragraphs 5.48 to 5.79)
6(D): Misfeasance in public office (paragraphs 6.30 to 6.32)
6(E): Malicious Prosecution (paragraphs 6.33 to 6.42)
8(B): Barred claims: criminal cases (paragraphs 8.8 to 8.12)
Schedule 4: Section 8: False accounting (8.1 — 8.6)
Some of these sections mention factual matters that are not within your knowledge so we're not asking for your sign
off of these sections. I should however be grateful if you could flag whether we've misstated any of the criminal law
concepts. All other comments of course welcomed.
Just in case you need it, I've attached the Letter of Claim to which our letter responds. No need to review the LOC
but you've got it just in case.
If possible, comments / amendments by the end of this week would be appreciated.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin
WBD_000340.000013
WBONO0000470
WBON0000470
www.bonddickinson.com
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidenti legally privileged and protected by law. lonly is authorised to
‘access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not baltm: GRO I please notify andrewparsonst “Jas soon as possible and delete
any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this communication or attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission. Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for any loss or
damage which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it
This email is sent by Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered office is 4 More
London Riverside, London, SE1 2AU, where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or
consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627.
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
<_DOC_33380020(1)_ DRAFT Letter of Response 16 July 2016.docx>
<28.04.16 - Letter of Claim (8).pdf>
WBD_000340.000014