WBON0000825
WBON0000825
From:
To:
GRO _____}Rodrie Williams
Jonny Gribbenj GRO
isclosure Issue [BD-4A.FID20472253] 41188
Subject: ediation Responses -
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 08:55:40 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002 jpg; image003 jpg; image004.jpg; image005.png;
image006.png; image007.png; image008.png; image009.jpg; image010.jpg;
image011 jpg; image012.jpg; image013.jpg; image014.jpg; image015.jpg; image016.jpg;
image017.jpg; image018.png; image019.png; image020.png; image021.png;
image022.jpg; image023.jpg; image024.jpg
Dear All
Having read Counsel Bowyers advice on disclosure of the investigation officers report In my view the business need
to take the view not disclose to such documents at all.
Regards
Jarnail
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
©OOOO®
@postofficenews
From: Harry Bowyer {
Sent: 08 April 2014 08:30
To: andrew.parsons@~
Cc: Andrew Bolc; Jarni
Subject: RE: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue [BD-4A.FID20472253] 41188
Andy,
Tam afraid that it was me who started this hare running - more out of caution than trying to be
difficult. If we are to be serving these documents then it should be an informed decision of our
mutual client to do so as there may well be consequences.
Please forgive me if I appear to be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs in the following
paragraphs but I will be grateful for the same when you teach me civil disclosure!
The documents that we are concerned with are the officers’ reports. These are prepared at a very
early stage of a prosecution and are intended to set out the facts and background of a case in order
that a decision to prosecute might be made. This is necessarily at a stage when the investigation is
far from complete and will often contain conjecture and opinion that will subsequently be proved
WBD_000695.000001
WBON0000825
WBON0000825
wrong or inflammatory. I was reviewing a case yesterday where the officer was wondering
whether the suspect was taking the fall for her daughter when the daughter was, in his view, more
than likely to be involved.
They will contain criticism by the officer of POL procedures and suggestions for putting them
right - whether these are acted upon history seldom relates.
They also contain, in many cases, operational material that shows how these cases are detected
and the investigational resources that are available to POL. This is not something that should be
released into the public domain lightly - especially where the audit is intelligence led.
There are certain of these documents where information is revealed, no relevant to the case, which
may be commercially sensitive or embarrassing to our client. The case of Walters M006 has an
example where the officer raises the concern that there were no checks made on spoiled postage
slips to see if they were bogus or not. We do not know whether this has been fixed or even applies
today.
The final area of concern is that a substantial minority of these applications contain complaints
about the behaviour of our investigators. These documents give the telephone numbers and other
contact details of the officers who compile the reports which presumably may well find their way
into the hands of those who have a long held animus against them. In a world governed by the
Data Protection Act we should think extremely carefully before sending documents out
unredacted even to this extent.
These documents are seldom, if ever disclosed to the defence as they are not the primary evidence
and are a prosecution working tool. If they contain information that the defence should have we
usually serve it in some other way - either by statement, documentary exhibit or a disclosure note
which will say that, “Post Office Limited are aware that...... al
This information is and documentation is, in the main, POL’s. Where it is POL’s documentation
and POL’s information there is nothing to prevent its disclosure by POL (subject to the above)
even where we have made the decision not to disclose the document in the criminal proceedings.
This is why we have asked for clarification as to what POL wishes to do and the options are: 1)
Disclose unredacted, 2) Disclose redacted copies or 3) Do not disclose.
We need a consistent approach or people will notice that we are serving them in some cases and.
not in others.
If I can be of any further help please let me know
Harry
Harry. Bowyer
From: Andrew Bolc
Sent: 07 April 2014 17:18
To: Harry Bowyer
Subject: FW: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue [BD-4A.FID20472253]
WBD_000695.000002
WBON0000825
WBON0000825
One for you.
cheers
Andrew Bole
GRO
Direct:
From: Parsons, Andrew [} GRO. H
Sent: 07 April 2014 17:16
To: Andrew Bolc
Cc: Jarnail Singh; Rodric Williams; Jonny Gribben
Subject: RE: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Andrew
Jarnail has forwarded your email below to me.
I'll have to pick up this point with others at POL before coming back with an answer. However, before I do, one point of
clarification. From a criminal law perspective, what are the consequences of disclosing a document that had
previously been withheld in a prosecution on the grounds that it is a prosecution working document?
Obviously, if the document contains contentious information then disclosure of the document is a commercial decision
for POL. From a civil perspective, we are of course being cautious around disclosure of legally privileged material
(however, my initial view is that the document referred to below in the case of Walters would probably not meet the test
for privilege in a civil case). However, I just want to check if there are any criminal law consequences before reverting
to POL.
(Jarnail — hope its ok going straight back to Andrew on this one — shout if not)
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Jarnail Singh [/ GRO. i
Sent: 07 April 2014 13:55
To: Rodric Williams; Jonny Gribben; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: FW: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue
Rodric, Jonny, Andy
Please see email from CK with regards to disclosure of documents containing sensitive information such as
Investigation reports in mediation responses. CK say a_ policy decision is required from POL for consistent
of approach to these responses.
WBD_000695.000003
WBON0000825
WBON0000825
CK is of the view POL seem to have 3 options namely
i) Do not disclose such documents at all
ii) Disclose them in a redacted form
iii) Disclose them in their entirety, accepting any consequences that follow.
May I have your views and POL preferred option from above and how CK is instructed on the sensitive
information disclosure in their mediation responses..
Regards
Jarnail.
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
148 Old Street, LONDO!
‘GRO.
Post Office stories
©O©OOOO®
@postofficenews
From: Andrew Bolc [mailto} J
Sent: 07 April 2014 13:20
To: Jarnail Singh
Subject: CK Mediation Responses - Disclosure Issue
Dear Jarnail,
Harry has asked that I raise this issue with you, which has come to light whilst we have been
preparing our proposed amendments to the POL Mediation Responses.
It relates to the disclosure of certain documents as part of the POL Mediation Response. At the
end of each response is a heading entitled “Documents being provided to Second Sight.” We
have noticed that some of these documents contain sensitive material which it may be considered
is inappropriate to disclose. Typically the problem arises, but is not exclusive to, the investigating
officer’s original report into the case.
By way of example, I attach our concerns raised by Counsel in relation to a case we are currently
looking at; M006 (Terrence Walters). It relates to the investigator’s report
“As you know I have worries about these documents being disclosed let alone without being redacted. This
document would not be disclosed in a criminal prosecution as it is a prosecution working document. In this
case, along with disclosing the investigating officer's mobile phone number, landline and other items of
personal data which drive a coach and horses through the Data Protection Act, the document discloses the
officer's opinion as to how cases of spoilt postage slips should be dealt with in the future and the fact (which
is irrelevant to this case but I would imagine that POL do not want in the public domain) that there was, at
WBD_000695.000004
WBON0000825
WBON0000825
the time of this case, no attempt to reconcile spoilt postage claim forms to check whether they were bogus or
not.”
A similar issue arose last week with regard to M046 (Siobhan Sayer). Counsel is of the view that a
policy decision needs to be taken by POL to confirm how it intends to handle such documents
containing sensitive information, so that there is a uniformity of approach to these responses.
It would seem the 3 options are
i) Do not disclose such documents at all
ii) Disclose them in a redacted form
iii) Disclose them in their entirety, accepting any consequences that follow.
Please could we be provided with instructions as to which of these options you would prefer us to
adopt.
Regards
Andrew Bolc
CartwrightKing
mes SOLICITORS —
Birmingham I Derby I LeicesterI London I Newcastle I Nottingham I Sheffield
Permanent House, 31 Horsefair Street, Leicester, LE1 5BU
"We have a new wi inI Ed
www.cartwrightking.co.uk
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
this in error plea:
Save a tree - please only print emails that you mus!
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privile
ged and protected by law. andrew bole
only is authorised to access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not 3 please notify
andrew, parsons@f” ‘as possible and delete any copies. Unauthorised u: ation, distribution, publication or copying of this
communication or atta 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.
WBD_000695.000005
WBON0000825
WBON0000825
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 for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number 0C317661
Our registered office is St Ann’s Wharf, 112 Quayside, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NEI 3DX, 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
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient,
you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in
error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
WBD_000695.000006