WBONO0000869
WBON0000869
From: "Parsons, Andrew"!
To: "David Oliver,
Subject: RE: Advice and Speaking Notes. [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:52:30 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image002.jpg; image003.jpg; image004.jpg; image005.gif
David
o No evidence of fault by POL. POL considered that the losses in this case were most likely caused by
user error as there were a lack of controls in place at the branch eg. compromised passwords,
physical checks of stock not being undertaken to the required standard and cash declarations not
being accurately completed. It found no failings on POL's part.
o SS agree that POL not at fault for losses. Second Sight concluded that the losses were likely caused
by theft by a volunteer in the charity shop in which the branch was located. In particular, Second Sight
appear to base their conclusion on the fact that the Applicant failed to ensure that those volunteers
could not access the branch cash holdings. There is therefore nothing in SS' report to support a claim
by the Applicant.
o Convicted. The Applicant accepted a caution for false accounting. The Scheme has not produced any
evidence to suggest that the Applicant's caution is unsafe.
o No evidence of fault by POL. The Applicant has not provided any evidence that faults with Horizon
were to blame for the losses. POL continues to believe that the Applicant stole the money.
o Second Sight agree with POL's conclusion.
o No evidence of failing by POL. The Applicant was convicted of theft after a full trial. There is no
evidence that calls into question the safety of the conviction.
* — Criminal cases in general:
o No scope for concession. Any form of compromise by POL could upset the safety of a conviction.
Hence POL is not able to offer any settlement unless the investigation process has revealed grounds
that put a conviction at serious risk of being unsafe.
o Risk of mediating. Even mediating a case, which is a process for resolving disputed matters, could
raise questions over the safety of a conviction.
o Risk applies to all criminal cases. The above risks are the same regardless of whether the
conviction is by caution, guilty plea or following trial.
o Proper forum. The correct forum for criminal cases is the Court of Appeal. POL would consider
mediating a case if there was a successful appeal against conviction or sentence.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
WBD_000739.000001
WBONO0000869
WBON0000869
Blin}
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 09 July 2014 14:29
To: David Oliver; _
Subject: FW: Advice and Speaking Notes. [BD-4A.FID20472253]
David
Advice from CK on mediating criminal cases attached.
In short:
e The risk of mediating a criminal case is the same regardless of whether the conviction is by caution, guilty
plea or following trial.
«There is an increased criminal risk of mediating before an appeal rather than after.
A
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin)
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Martin Smith!
Sent: 09 July 2014 14:11
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Jarnail A Sing
Subject: Advice and Speaking Notes.
Andy,
Please find attached the Advice of Simon Clarke which contains speaking notes as requested.
Kind regards,
Martin.
Martin Smith
WBD_000739.000002
WBONO0000869
WBON0000869
CartwrightKing
me SOLICITORS —
Birmingham I Derby I Leeds I LeicesterI London I Nottingham I Sheffield I Tyneside
www.cartwrightking.co.uk
This message is confidential and may c
this in error please de!
ontain legally privileged information. If you have received
A list of directors is available
Authority No:312459. VAT Registration No: 737837295,
WBD_000739.000003