From: Andrew Parsons
To: Tom Beezer }
! "Gideon Cohen I
WBONO0000679
WBON0000679
¢ GRO
Ce: Amy Prime
Subject: RE: recusal
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:58:20 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image3052b5.PNG; image9d7486.PNG;
imagefdaSab.PNG
Point 2 is logically wrong. The procedural unfairness for trial 1 does not automatically infect trial 2 with procedural
unfairness, because the procedure for both trials was different. The cross-infection is due to the Judge's bias.
Also, there is zero chance of this judge staying the Horizon trial in any event, and without a recusal application on the
cards, I cannot see the C of A moving quick enough to stay the Horizon trial on normal appeal grounds.
This plan will almost certainly fail, will just waste time and make PO look indifferent to recusal when it needs to move
forcefully.
Just my two cents...
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
‘Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
Join us for Disrupting Disputes 2.0
20 March 2019 at the British Library
Book your place here
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON ¥) (in)
From: Tom Beezer
Sent: 20 March 2019 07:44
WBD_000549.000001
WBONO0000679
WBON0000679
“I David Cavender {
Cc: Amy Prime; Andrew Parsons
Subject: FW: recusal [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
All
The client askes the question below. Views ?
Tom Beezer
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
A
O i
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
Join us for Disrupting Disputes 2.0
20 March 2019 at the British Library
Book your place here
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON J) i)
From: Jane MacLeod [mailto __
Sent: 20 March 2019 07:14
To: Tom Beezer
Cc: Andrew Parsons; Rodric Williams
Subject: recusal
Tom
I have been asked to see whether an approach along the following lines (as an
alternative to recusal) would be possible procedurally:
WBD_000549.000002
WBONO0000679
WBON0000679
“1. inform the judge that the company is appealing on the law and unfair procedure
2. ask the judge to stop the Horizon trial until the outcome of the appeal is
determined on the grounds that if the unfairness claim is upheld it would also put the
fairness of the Horizon trial at risk
3. If the judge refuses 2, seek and order from a higher court to the same effect and
ask the judge at least to stop the Horizon trial until such an order can be obtained (or
not)
If the remedy in 3 is sought but isn’t obtained we will at least have tested the
relevance and implications of unfairness issues on the second trial. And effectively a
higher court will have told us that any unfairness in the first trial would not impact
the Horizon trial (obviously contrary to POL's view).
If the remedy in 3 doesn’t exist in law then recusal would be an alternative at that
point. It seems to me the judge’s refusal to agree to 2 would support a recusal
application as he would be unwilling to accept that if unfairness took place in the
first trial the nature of it would necessarily affect the conduct and fairness of the
Horizon trial - a view which logically suggests bias as it is absurd.”
Could we please test this with the Counsel team? It may have the outcome that the
judge is asked to recuse himself, but not necessarily. And seems to assume that we
could get an appeal quite quickly, which must be uncertain. I’m also not sure that the
logic in 2. holds up, and 3 means arguing procedural unfairness without (necessarily)
arguing mis-application of the law etc.
Thanks,
Jane
WBD_000549.000003