WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
Witness Name: Thomas Mathew Beezer
Statement No.: WITN09510200
Dated: 8 May 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF THOMAS MATHEW BEEZER
I, THOMAS MATHEW BEEZER, will say as follows.
INTRODUCTION
1. I am a Partner in the firm of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP (WBD). A brief
summary of my qualifications and career history is given in my first witness
statement dated 13 June 2023. This second witness statement is made to
assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the Inquiry) with the matters set out
in the Rule 9 Request made of me dated 25 March 2024 (the Request). The
Request principally concerns the (limited) role I played in Bates & O'rs v. Post
Office Limited (the GLO Proceedings), and in particular the application made
by Post Office Limited (POL) for the Managing Judge in the GLO Proceedings,
Mr Justice Fraser (as he then was), to recuse himself (the recusal
application).
Page 1 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
2. The Request that I have received from the Inquiry relates to matters that took
place between 2012 and 2019. Given the passage of time, and my limited role
in the GLO Proceedings generally, I have an incomplete recollection of all of
the issues covered by the Request although it is right to state that I do have
some independent memory of certain relevant events from March and April
2019 as I go on to set out below. In order to provide as full a response as I
am now able, and to assist the Inquiry to the greatest possible extent, I have
refreshed my memory by reading the documents the Inquiry has referred me
to as well as carrying out further searches of those parts of WBD's files relating
to this case where I had some involvement, albeit limited. I have not reviewed
the entirety of WBD's files relating to the GLO Proceedings or the recusal
application, nor have I re-read every email relating to this matter that I was
sent or copied into. That would not have been practicable as there are a very
large number of documents in those files. Where my answers to the Request
are based upon my review of documents, as opposed to my recollection, I
have made that clear. Similarly, where I refer to material which was not sent
to me by the Inquiry with the Request but which I have identified from my
review of WBD's files, I identify that material and provide a copy of it together
with this statement.
3. I wish to state at the outset that I have great sympathy for the subpostmasters
affected by what I now know to be very significant issues with the Horizon
system. Whilst I believed that the recusal application was properly made
based upon the information and advice received from Leading Counsel at the
time, I can well see that making the application added to the complexity and
Page 2 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
challenges faced by the Claimants in the GLO Proceedings. I am sorry for
that, and wish to apologise to each and every Claimant for my role in that.
I AM ASKED TO DESCRIBE TO WHAT EXTENT, IF AT ALL, I WAS INVOLVED
WITH, OR HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF, WBD’S WORK IN ADVISING OR
REPRESENTING POL IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOLLOWING
MATTERS: THE SECOND SIGHT INVESTIGATION AND PREPARATION OF THE
INTERIM REPORT IN 2012/13; THE INITIAL COMPLAINT REVIEW AND
MEDIATION SCHEME AND ITS WORKING GROUP IN 2013/15; OR THE REVIEW
OF PAST CONVICTIONS OF SPMS.
4. Although I was aware at a general level that WBD was involved in advising
and/or representing POL in or in connection with at least some of these
matters:
4.1. the Second Sight investigation and preparation of the Interim Report in
2012/13,
4.2 the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme and its Working
Group in 2013/15; and
4.3 the review of past convictions of SPMs,
I had no material involvement in any of that work.
5. I had a high-level awareness that these matters were ongoing in the team
through day-to-day interactions with people within WBD who were engaged
on those matters, but I did not have specific or detailed information on any of
Page 3 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
those topics as far as I can now recall. Where I did have any involvement in
or knowledge of these matters, that was from a resourcing or team
management perspective and I do not recall other substantive involvement.
THE REQUEST ASKS ME TO DESCRIBE TO WHAT EXTENT, IF AT ALL, I WAS
INVOLVED IN WBD’S WORK IN ADVISING AND REPRESENTING POL IN THE
GLO PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO MY INSTRUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE
RECUSAL APPLICATION.
6. I was not involved (save in relation to some discrete team and business
management issues) in WBD's work in advising or representing POL in the
GLO Proceedings prior to me assisting the WBD GLO team in respect of the
recusal application in early March 2019. I stepped in to assist an extremely
busy team on a temporary basis at a time when it was necessary for extra
senior resource to become involved, as I go on to describe below.
7. Similar to the position in relation to the other matters I refer to above, prior to
early March 2019 I did have high-level awareness of the GLO Proceedings
through day-to-day interactions with people within WBD who were engaged in
that important matter, but I did not have detailed information on the GLO
Proceedings as far as I can now recall. From my review of relevant parts of
WBD's files I can see that Andrew Parsons did send on to me (at around the
time it was received by WBD, in 2016) the Claimants' Letter of Claim in the
GLO Proceedings. I do not recall that and I presume that I was sent that letter
for information purposes and to let me know that it had been received as that
would impact resourcing in the WBD team. From the WBD files, it does not
Page 4 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
appear that I replied to Andrew Parsons, which supports my assumption that I
was sent the letter for information only.
8. I had a degree of awareness of the demands that the GLO Proceedings were
making upon colleagues at WBD and would speak regularly to colleagues
about how things were going, but I was not involved in the substantive
proceedings in an advisory capacity before March 2019.
THE REQUEST ASKS ME TO EXPLAIN THE BACKGROUND TO AND PROCESS
BY WHICH I BECAME INSTRUCTED TO ADVISE POL ON THE RECUSAL
APPLICATION AND / OR APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL THE
ORDERS MADE IN THE COMMON ISSUES TRIAL.
9. The team within WBD working on the GLO Proceedings was, in early 2019,
extremely busy. The Common Issues Trial (CiT) had taken place between 7
November 2018 and 6 December 2018, preparations were underway for the
then imminent Horizon Issues Trial (HiT) and the draft CiT Judgment was
teleased to WBD and its GLO Counsel team (which was led by David
Cavender KC in respect of the CiT) on 8 March 2019. As part of the case
management regime decided in the GLO Proceedings the HiT was scheduled
to commence on 11 March 2019. I understood from the WBD GLO team that
the draft CiT Judgment was very unfavourable to POL; that the WBD team and
POL were dismayed by the outcome; and that there was talk of a possible
urgent appeal. I also understood from the WBD GLO team that because of
the proximity of the start of the HiT (which was then 3 days from receipt of the
draft CiT Judgment, those 3 days including a weekend), if there was to be any
Page 5 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
appeal of the CiT Judgment, additional senior (i.e. partner-led) support would
be necessary, as the WBD GLO team were also preparing for the HiT,
alongside considering the draft CiT Judgment and any next steps that may
flow from that.
10. Given the significance of the GLO Proceedings to POL, which was an
important client of WBD, it was obvious to me that any additional steps WBD
could take to support POL in a moment of particularly intensive work should
be offered. As a senior partner in the litigation practice I was well placed to
help. I therefore offered to assist with the logistical elements of any appeal,
such as lining up Counsel, procedure, supervising junior lawyers already on
the WBD GLO team and client interfacing on the topic of the possible
appeal/recusal.
11. Whilst I was keen to assist both the WBD GLO team and POL, it was known
to the WBD GLO team and to POL that I had no detailed knowledge of the
GLO Proceedings as I had not been involved in them to any material degree
previously. This can be seen in communications to which the Inquiry has
referred me; for example, I say to Jane MacLeod (then the General Counsel
at POL) in an email of 17 March 2019 [POL00022969] that:
"In my speaking to Andy [Parsons] today (he calls me after I send e
mails on this...) he reminds me of how much I don’t know about this
matter."
Page 6 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
12. My capacity to advise substantively (by which I mean on the underlying factual
and other matters covered by the draft CiT Judgment) was limited, as POL
were aware, notwithstanding my desire to assist as best I then could.
13. The process by which I became familiar with the materials I needed to
understand (subject always to the point I made in my 17 March 2019 email
referred to above) involved reviewing documents that included the draft CiT
Judgment,’ David Cavender KC's note of 10 March 2019? (see below) and a
summary by Andrew Parsons of the CiT Judgment. The WBD files
demonstrate that I was sent these documents on Monday 11 March 2019%, i.e.
the day the HiT started. I am fairly certain that I would also have had
discussions with members of the WBD GLO team to gain a background. My
level of familiarity with the issues in play in, and the relevant considerations to
take into account regarding, what became the recusal application increased
given the intensity of this period but, as I say below, I saw my role as primarily
being to provide co-ordination, organisation and a senior point of contact for
POL in this particularly demanding period.
14. The concept of a recusal application first came up, so far as I am aware from
reviewing the WBD files, from David Cavender KC in his email of 9 March 2019
to Andrew Parsons (to which I was not copied). That email states:
1 WBON0001733.
2 WBONO000209.
3 WBON0001464. Please note that this document is incorrectly dated 9 March 2018; it should in fact
have been dated 9 March 2019.
4 WBONO0001728.
5 WBONO000649.
Page 7 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
"Indeed I am beginning to form the view that seeking the Judge's
recusal is something that we need to actively consider. I am drafting a
Note too (as requested) dealing with the appeal on a high level. As part
of that I have been collating some of the Judges comments and findings
and the gross procedural irregularity here. If we are right about all of
those points - then how could a reasonable independent observer think
that such a Judge could fairly adjudicate in the future on a dispute
between the parties i.e. trial 3 and beyond ? I recognise its extreme -
and being so directly involved makes it difficult to be objective - but what
we have been served up with is frankly so shockingly bad that we must
at least consider it. I deal with this point — in brief in my Note which you
will get tomorrow.
15. That advice note referred to by David Cavender KC was the note I refer to
above produced on 10 March 2019.° As I explain above, I believe that I first
saw that note on 11 March 2019 when the WBD files show that Andrew
Parsons forwarded a copy of it to me.’ I see from the WBD files that the note
had been sent to Jane MacLeod and others at POL by Andrew Parsons on 10
March 2019.8 David Cavender KC warns that recusal is "...certainly a
dramatic option of last resort' — see paragraph 19 of that note and it also raises
the possibility of "instructing separate Counsel to consider the point on recusal
® WBON0001466; WBON0000209.
7 WBONO001728.
® WBONO000205.
Page 8 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
— as having been so closely involved in this it is difficult to be truly objective."
— see paragraph 23 of that note.°
16. David Cavender KC's note of 10 March 2019'° contains analysis about the
possibility of an appeal over certain CiT findings. I believe that I became
involved in both the prospective appeal and the recusal matter as they were
linked concepts (as a function of the then proposed (by David Cavender KC)
“procedural unfairness" ground of appeal), were both pressing (and became
urgent), and my involvement became useful (and in practice necessary) at that
time due to the very significant demands on the resources of the WBD GLO
team given the then imminent commencement of the HiT on 11 March 2019.
17. It is also worth stating that I do recall Jane MacLeod saying to me, early on in
my involvement on the recusal/appeal work stream, that she and the Board of
POL wanted independent advice on the issues of recusal (on which I had no
prior experience, a fact known to Jane MacLeod from our early interactions on
the issue. I believe that she had no prior experience of a recusal application
either) and appeal. I can see from my handwritten note of 12 March 2019"!
that the concept of independent advice was raised by Jane MacLeod from the
outset of my involvement (and, indeed, it can be seen that David Cavender KC
raised the concept of independent advice in his note of 10 March 2019," as I
set out above).
° WBONO000209.
1° WBONO0000209.
‘1 WBON0001738. See also the recently transcribed version of my handwritten note which I have
produced for the purpose of this statement: WBON0001736.
‘2 WBONO000209.
Page 9 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
18. I understood from Jane MacLeod that POL did not want to rely solely upon the
advice of David Cavender KC or the advice of WBD on the appeal and recusal
issues. The CiT had not gone in POL's favour, and WBD and David Cavender
KC were closely connected to that. Hence, Jane MacLeod explained to me,
the Board of POL wanted a different Counsel team and, it transpired, further
law firms (first Norton Rose Fulbright and later Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF))
to provide additional independent advice as I detail below.
19. My role was, as II understood it, to facilitate POL in getting further advice from
a new and independent Counsel team whilst the WBD GLO team were
occupied with the HiT, before it was adjourned. I was not involved in POL
instructing the further law firms that POL retained for additional advice.
20. I can see from my review of WBD's files that, and my own recollection supports
this, I was intensively involved in work associated with the recusal application
during March 2019 but that my role assisting the WBD GLO team had
decreased by around early April 2019 and the WBD GLO team, with much
more detailed knowledge of matters than I had, picked up running the
procedure of the recusal and the leave to appeal applications, the HiT having
by then been adjourned.
21. I had less involvement in the matter in later April and May 2019 although I did
attend a POL meeting on 9 May 2019 with David Cavender KC concerning the
scope of any appeal. I believe that I was at that particular meeting as Andrew
Parsons was initially not able to attend, and I was there primarily as a courtesy
to Counsel and POL. Following a change to the start time of the meeting,
Page 10 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
Andrew Parsons was able to dial-in to the meeting by telephone and David
Cavender KC and I attended in person. I also provided some limited support
to Andrew Parsons and the wider WBD GLO team in managing the
relationship with Post Office's then new General Counsel, Ben Foat, at this
difficult time for the client.
THE REQUEST ASKS ME TO DESCRIBE THE WRITTEN OR ORAL
INSTRUCTIONS I GAVE TO COUNSEL TO ADVISE ON THE RECUSAL
APPLICATION, INCLUDING LORD NEUBERGER AND LORD GRABINER.
INCLUDING SETTING OUT THE DOCUMENTS I PROVIDED TO THEM.
22. The instruction of Lord Neuberger and, later, Lord Grabiner was primarily done
via WBD sending bundles of documents with associated questions to be
addressed by Counsel and by David Cavender KC briefing them (either
remotely (as Lord Neuberger was out of the country at the time) or face to face,
in the case of Lord Grabiner as each Leading Counsel was from the same
Chambers). There were multiple briefing sessions, I believe. The briefings
were a Counsel to Counsel process. Given the speed within which POL
wanted an independent view from very senior Counsel, that was the most
expeditious way to get firstly Lord Neuberger, and then Lord Grabiner, up to
speed.
23. In terms of documentation, I believe that David Cavender KC supplied to each
of Lord Neuberger and Lord Grabiner a note dated 13 March 2019 which he
had prepared in conjunction with Gideon Cohen (Junior Counsel instructed by
WBD on behalf of POL) setting out the background to the (at that time) possible
Page 11 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
recusal application.’7 On 12 March 2019 Amy Prime, of WBD, sent a bundle
of 79 enclosures to Lord Neuberger and Lord Grabiner's clerk.4 In addition,
the note of the Board call of 18 March 2019'S records that Lord Grabiner had
seen Lord Neuberger's advice note dated 14 March 2019, David Cavender
KC's and Gideon Cohen's note dated 13 March 2019 and the CiT Judgment.
THE REQUEST ASKS ME TO DESCRIBE ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL
COMMUNICATIONS I HAD CONCERNING THE RECUSAL APPLICATION OR THE
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL (INCLUDING PROSPECTS OF
SUCCESS OR STRATEGY) WITH COUNSEL, MEMBERS OF POL’S LEGAL
DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORS OF POL OR UKGI / GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
INCLUDING SETTING OUT THE DETAIL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS
CHRONOLOGICALLY.
24. Between 11 and 15 March 2019, I liaised with POL and various barristers'
chambers (One Essex Court, Blackstone Chambers and Brick Court
Chambers) with regard to (i) instructing a senior KC to advise on the merits of
making a recusal application and (ii) their availability to undertake the
advocacy of such an application if made."® POL ultimately instructed Lord
Neuberger to advise on the merits of the recusal application and Lord Grabiner
to undertake the advocacy. Stephanie Wood (a further Junior Barrister
*S WBON0001474; POL00022885.
4 WBON0001468; WBONO001469.
‘8 POLO0006792.
16 WBON0000655; WBON0001738 (handwritten note of telephone call with Jane MacLeod on 12
March 2019) and WBONO0001736 (recently transcribed version); WBON0001739; WBON0001740;
POL00022877; WBON0001734 (handwritten note) and WBON0001735 (recently transcribed version);
WBON0001741; WBON0001742; WBON0001743; WBON0001748; WBON0001750 (handwritten
note of telephone call with Jane MacLeod on 15 March 2019) and WBON0001751 (recently
transcribed version); WBON0001753; WBON0001754.
Page 12 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
instructed by WBD on behalf of POL) and Gideon Cohen were instructed to
provide Lord Grabiner with junior support on the recusal application.
25. On 14 March 2019, I received from Lord Neuberger's clerk,’” and sent on to
Jane MacLeod, copies of (i) Lord Neuberger's advice note on the merits of
making a recusal application’® and (ii) David Cavender KC's note he had
prepared for Lord Neuberger on the background to the possible recusal
application.'® Lord Neuberger's advice note stated:
a) "19. For all the reasons set out above I consider that there are
reasonable ground for [POL] to bring an application to recuse the Judge
in these proceedings. Furthermore, if it is [POL's] intention to bring an
appeal on the basis of the "unfairness issues" (as I understand to be
the case) — and on that appeal will ask the Court of Appeal to return the
case to a different Judge, then the [POL] has little option but to seek to
get the Judge to recuse himself at this stage.
b)
c) 25. Assuming (which seems very likely from what I have heard)
the Judge refuses to recuse himself or to adjourn the current trial,
consideration should perhaps be given to appealing that decision
urgently (a) to ensure it cannot be said that [POL] has waived its right,
(b) to bring this matter to the attention of the Court of Appeal in the hope
‘7 WBONO001474,
‘8 POL00023227; POL00023228.
‘9 POL00023096; POL00023097.
Page 13 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
that they might expedite the application for permission to appeal. Peter
Smith J's refusal on a Friday to recuse himself was reversed by the
Court of Appeal the following Monday in Howell v Lees Millais [2007]
EWCA Civ 720, but that was a very plain and very simple case."
26. Between 14 and 15 March 2019 I liaised with POL and the Counsel team
regarding the steps to be taken in the recusal process, including attending two
calls on 14 March 2019. One of those calls was with Jane MacLeod and David
Cavender KC but I do not now recall who was in attendance on the other.”°
27. Between 15 and 17 March 2019, I liaised with POL and the Counsel team
regarding the preparation of a paper for POL's Board explaining:
27.1 why POL was considering a recusal application;
27.2 what the application (if successful) would achieve;
27.3 the risks of not proceeding with an application;
27.4 the prospects of success; and
27.5 the process and timing.?"
28. I prepared a first draft of this recusal paper?? and, after I had obtained input
from Andrew Parsons (given the limited state of my knowledge of matters as I
20 WBON0001745 (handwritten note of conference call with Jane MacLeod and David Cavender KC
on 14.03.2019) and WBON0001747 (recently transcribed version); WBON0001744 (handwritten note
of additional call on 14.03.2019) and WBON0001746 (recently transcribed version); WBON0000674;
WBON0O000664.
21 WBONO001756.
22 WBON0001493; WBON0001494.
Page 14 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
outline above), sent it to Jane MacLeod.”° Substantial input on that draft note
was obtained from Andrew Parsons”‘ and, later, from David Cavender KC.?5
David Cavender KC added the following comments to the recusal paper:
"... [Mr Cavender’s recommendation is] that it is difficult to see how the
litigation can be proceeded to a sensible (and fair) conclusion before
this Judge. He has behaved (and is apparently continuing to behave
to the current Horizon issues trial) in a manner which can only fairly be
described as biased against Post Office. It is almost as though he is a
party and has his own position — as opposed to being a neutral tribunal
overseeing a adversarial process. That bias is reasonably obvious in
the manner that he has behaved and the findings that he has made.
But the issues of law he has determined can be overturned and the
irrelevant findings of fact likely quashed the current position can be
rectified by the Court of Appeal.
But in the current Horizon trial and the forthcoming trial (dealing with
breach of contract issues) in November 2019, Judge will also be
required to make findings of fact and give his view on competing expert
evidence. Such findings are much more difficult to attack as it will
involve showing that such findings were not open to the Judge on the
evidence — which is close to having to show perversity. This is
extremely difficult, and in practice the Court of Appeal do not generally
23 WBONO001757; POL00022961,
24 \WBON0001495; WBON0001498.
2° WBON0001499; WBON0001500.
Page 15 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
overturn findings of fact. So there is an opportunity to do something
about this Judicial behaviour now which will not arise again. There
must be a real risk that unless this opportunity is taken this Judge is
only going to get worse — as he gets emboldened by his earlier findings,
and Post Office will be stuck in an unfair trial process and can expect
adverse and draconian findings going forward.
Furthermore, the appeal that is planned against the CIT judgment
involves (1) an appeal against the legal findings (2) an appeal on the
basis of procedural unfaimess. The procedural unfairness part of the
appeal would be on the basis that the Judge made findings of fact he
should not have done — and then fed those findings of fact into the legal
issues he has determining- which he also should not have done. Given
the nature of the second part of the appeal it would be inevitable that
the party making that allegation would then ask the Court of Appeal to
return the case to a different Judge - given that behaviour. However,
if that party has not mounted a recusal application — there is very little
the Court of Appeal can do but return it to the Judge- a Judge whose
legal findings would (hopefully) have been significantly reversed and
his behaviour (hopefully) been criticised by the Court of Appeal —
perhaps in trenchant terms. How he would behave in that scenario is
at best uncertain.
Page 16 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
Therefore, Mr.Cavender's view is that it is difficult to see a realistic
alternative and so a recusal application should be made."6
29. I sent the updated draft recusal paper to Jane MacLeod on 16 March 2019,
along with a comparison against the previous draft I had sent to her.2” Jane
MacLeod responded asking for a call to discuss and stating that POL's Board
were "highly nervous" of the strategy so we "need to be very clear on both why
doing it is the best course of action, and what our prospects of success are"?®
I telephoned Jane MacLeod shortly thereafter and she then followed-up with
some comments on the draft recusal paper.’? I actioned Jane MacLeod's
comments and sent her an updated version of the note on 17 March 2019.°°
Jane MacLeod responded with a small number of additional comments"! which
I then actioned.°?
30. On 17 March 2019, I sent the final version of the recusal paper to Lord
Grabiner's clerk asking for Lord Grabiner to review and, if he agreed with its
contents, provide a "broad "yes that is OK"".°> Lord Grabiner replied later that
day stating "Treat this as my broad ‘yes that is ok’. I’m still wading through the
treacle of this mad judgment. I don’t understand what he thought he was doing
or what he thought he was supposed fo be doing. The constant repetition of
the mantra that he wasn’t deciding anything outside of the common issues is
26 WBONO0001500.
27 WBONO001759; POL00023912; POL00023913.
28 POL00330036.
22 POL00023231; WBONO001763.
%° POL00022969; POL00022970.
31 WBON0001769.
2 POL00022973; POL00022974.
33 WBON0001501; WBONO001502.
Page 17 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
hardly credible. I've yet to get to the many other matters but I can see from
Gideon's note and from the various quotes that it just gets worse".*4 Lord
Neuberger responded to confirm that he agreed with Lord Grabiner "re the
judgment".> I relayed Lord Grabiner's and Lord Neuberger's comments to
Jane MacLeod and Rodric Williams.°°
31. I observe in passing that the advice expressed here by very senior Counsel
amounted, demonstrably, to a very strong recommendation that POL should
be making what became the recusal application.
32. Between 15 March 2019 and 18 March 2019, I also liaised with POL and the
Counsel team with regard to arranging (i) a conference between Jane
MacLeod and Lord Grabiner at 2pm on 18 March 2019 and (ii) Lord
Neuberger's and David Cavender KC's attendance at the conference with
POL's Board on 18 March 2019.2”
33. Ahead of those conferences, on 17 March 2019, Jane MacLeod sent me a
document setting out extracts of the CiT Judgment which "might demonstrate
‘bias and which should be "understood in the context of a decision that was
not supposed to be about the factual evidence”.*® Jane MacLeod also asked
me to seek confirmation as to whether Lord Grabiner was supportive of the
4 WBONO001772.
© WBONO001773.
36 WBONO001774.
37 WBON0001749 (handwritten note of telephone call from Jane MacLeod on 15 March 2019) and
WBON0001752 (recently transcribed version); WBON0001493; WBON0001764; WBON0001767;
WBON0O001770; WBON0001771; WBON0001778; WBON0001777 (handwritten note of telephone
call with Rob Smith (clerk at One Essex Court) on 18 March 2019) and WBON0001775 (recently
transcribed version); WBON0001779.
38 WBON0001765; POL00023230.
Page 18 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
recusal application. That same day, I responded to Jane MacLeod's email
with some comments in response to hers®? and I also emailed Lord Grabiner's
clerk seeking the confirmation Jane MacLeod had asked me to obtain as to
whether Lord Grabiner was supportive of the recusal application. Lord
Grabiner responded that he "agree[d] with David Neuberger's approach and
[he] support[ed] the recusal application proposal”.“°
34. At 2pm on 18 March 2019, I attended a conference with Jane MacLeod, Lord
Grabiner, David Cavender KC and Gideon Cohen. I made handwritten notes
during the conference’ which I later turned into a more formal attendance
note.4? According to my notes, Lord Grabiner "confirmed that he agreed with
the content of Lord Neuberger's note" dated 14 March 2019. As to the
prospects of a recusal application, Lord Grabiner stated that:
". there are strong arguments in favour of an application for recusal,
and
- it was his strong view that a recusal application was the right course
of action, and
- there is a "serious prospect of success", and
- and that this Judge had done "an unbelievable nonsense and
demonstrated apparent bias."43
38 POL00023087.
40 WBONO0001768.
41 WBONO001776 (handwritten note) and WBON0001737 (recently transcribed version).
42 POL00006792.
43 POL00006792.
Page 19 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
35. Later on 18 March 2019, Lord Neuberger and David Cavender KC attended a
conference with POL's Board (I assume that must have been by telephone as
Lord Neuberger was overseas at that time). I cannot recall if I attended that
conference but Jane MacLeod emailed me afterwards stating that Lord
Neuberger had confirmed that he thought POL had “a good case on recusal”.“
Jane MacLeod stated that there was to be a further Board call on 20 March
2019 and asked whether Lord Grabiner would be able to attend in person.
Jane MacLeod also asked for "a pro forma model of what the various
outcomes could be — that is, what is the financial impact such that taking a
step like recusal is 'worth it and set out various factors that should be taken
into account.
36. Between 18 and 20 March 2019, I liaised with POL and Lord Grabiner's clerk
with regard to arranging Lord Grabiner's attendance at the conference with
POL's Board on 20 March 2019.45 Jane MacLeod informed me by telephone
on 20 March 2019 that a "non-litigator" from Norton Rose Fulbright would also
be attending the conference in order to provide POL's Board with independent
advice.*6
37. On 19 March 2019, Rodric Williams responded to Jane MacLeod's email of 18
March 2019 with additional comments on the factors that should be taken into
44 WBONO001780,
45 WBON0001783; WBON0001785; WBON0001782 (handwritten note of telephone call with Jane
MacLeod on 19 March 2019) and WBONO0001781 (recently transcribed version); WBON0001786;
WBON0001804; WBONO001790.
48 WBON0001791 (handwritten note of telephone call with Jane MacLeod on 20 March 2019) and
WBON0001793 (recently transcribed version); WBONO0001803.
Page 20 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
account when assessing the various outcomes of a recusal application.4” I
responded to Rodric Williams' email with my thoughts on the same.*®
38. Also on 19 March 2019, Jane MacLeod forwarded to me an email exchange
she had had with Richard Watson and Tom Cooper (UKGI) requesting (i) an
update on the proposed timing for making the recusal application and (ii)
written advice from Lord Grabiner by way of a note of the 18 March 2019
conference.*? I subsequently liaised with the Counsel team with regard to
timing (particularly the current status of the necessary application
documentation)*° and sent a corresponding update to Jane MacLeod.®'
39. On 20 March 2019, I sent Gideon Cohen a copy of my draft note of the
conference with Lord Grabiner on 18 March 2019 and asked him and, if
possible, Lord Grabiner, to make sure it matched what they took from the
conference.5? Gideon Cohen confirmed that he did not have any corrections
or changes and stated that he was "Not sure Lord Grabiner [would] have a
chance to review [that] morning, but no doubt he [would] expand on his view
on the call".®3 “The call" being the 20 March 2019 conference with POL's
Board. I therefore sent the note to Jane MacLeod.*4
47 \WWBONO001511.
48 WBONO001784.
4° WBONO001789,
5° WBONO001512.
51 POL00022883; POL00022884.
52 WBONO001797.
53 WBONO001800.
54 WBON0001801 (email); POL00006792 (conference note).
Page 21 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
40. Also on 20 March 2019, I received an email from Jane MacLeod asking
"whether an approach along the following lines (as an alternative to recusal)
would be possible procedurally:
"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."
Page 22 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
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."°>
41. I liaised with the Counsel team with regard to Jane MacLeod's above email
and David Cavender KC confirmed that the proposal would "not work" and if
made "would make matters (even worse)".© I forwarded David Cavender KC's
response to Jane MacLeod and she responded as follows:
d) "The question will be put — if not this, then is there any other
alternative to recusal?
e) The Board will want to know that there are no other options"*”
42. I responded to Jane MacLeod to confirm that I would warm Lord Grabiner up
for that question but that my view was that there was no middle ground.®® I
then forwarded Jane MacLeod's email to the Counsel team and asked Gideon
Cohen to warm Lord Grabiner up for the question. Gideon Cohen responded
to confirm that he would and he had already discussed it with Lord Grabiner.®?
55 WBONO001799.
56 WBONO0000681.
57 POL00268876.
58 WBONO001515.
58 WBONO001515.
Page 23 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
I subsequently emailed the Counsel team with a further question raised by
POL for discussion at the conference.®°
43. As described in more detail below, at 11:45am on 20 March 2019, Lord
Grabiner and I attended (by telephone) the first part of POL's Board Meeting.
I took a handwritten note®' which I later used to update my typed note of the
conference on 18 March 2019.°? My notes record that during the conference
Lord Grabiner advised:
"...the Judge had behaved quite improperly and it was now right to ask
him to stand down... it is apparent that this Judge has concluded views
on matters and as there are further trials to come, then those concluded
views would be a significant issue for Post Office unless this Judge is
asked to recuse himself.
...the apparent concluded views of this Judge are so strong that there
is no other way to deal with the issue than recusal. If Post Office does
not take such a step, yet later goes to the Court of Appeal on matters
of law from the CIT, the Court of Appeal will be left wondering why such
a step (i.e. recusal) was not taken.
.. his firm view was that Post Office has no option but to seek the
recusal of this Judge... whilst guarantees cannot be provided, Post
© WBONO001515.
61 WBONO001796 (handwritten note) and WBON0001794 (recently transcribed version).
62 POL00006397.
Page 24 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
Office does have a strong case for recusal... his strong
recommendation to the Post Office Board was to seek a recusal. The
sequencing of the trials, ordered by this Judge, compounds the issue
that Post Office faces as this Judge would be looking at the same
witnesses and issues in later trials — hence there is no other real option
but to seek recusal.
... if the Judge refuses to recuse himself then Post Office must ask the
Court of Appeal, and if that fails too then this Judge will remain in place
for Horizon and later trials... this Judge has already formed a view of
Post Office and so a failed recusal application is unlikely to make a
difference to outcomes when compared to plausible outcomes from a
situation where no recusal application is made.
... Lord Neuberger agreed with the advice on recusal that Post Office
was receiving and... there were few, if any, more respected QCs and
ex-Judges in this country."
44. Later that afternoon, I spoke to Jane MacLeod on the telephone and she
confirmed the instructions from POL's Board were to make the recusal
application. I relayed POL's instructions to the Counsel team® and Lord
Grabiner responded stating "/ really don't think [POL] had any choice".
® WBON0001792 (handwritten note of telephone call with Jane MacLeod on 20 March 2019) and
WBON0O001795 (recently transcribed version).
© WBONO001805.
®° WBONO001806.
Page 25 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
45. In anticipation of receiving instructions from POL on 20 March 2019, Gideon
Cohen had earlier circulated drafts of the recusal application documents to the
WBD GLO team and the Counsel team.® There followed an exchange of
emails in relation to the same®’ and Amy Prime then sent the draft documents
to Jane MacLeod.®*
46. At 5pm on 20 March 2019, I dialled in to a regular call with POL to discuss
progress regarding legal action in relation to the CiT Judgment.®?
47. On 21 March 2019, I exchanged emails with Jane MacLeod regarding Andrew
Parsons' draft witness statement in support of the recusal application.”° I also
commented on a draft reactive media statement which Jane MacLeod sent to
me”! and exchanged emails with POL regarding the approach to take to
disclosure of the application documents to the press.”
48. Also on 21 March 2019, I liaised with:
48.1 the Counsel team regarding future actions in the event that the recusal
application was unsuccessful;”?
48.2 POL regarding the timetable for the recusal application;’* and
6 WBONO0001516.
®7 WBONO001807.
68 POL00023769.
®° WBONO001808; WBON0001792 (handwritten note) and WBON0001795 (recently transcribed
version).
7° WBONO000687.
™ POLO0023980.
” POL00022982,
73 WBONO000200.
74 WBONO001846.
Page 26 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
48.3 Lord Grabiner's and David Cavender KC's clerk regarding their
availability to attend the hearing of the recusal application.’5
49. Between 21 and 26 March 2019, I was copied to emails between WBD and
the Counsel team regarding Andrew Parsons' witness statement in support of
the recusal application.” Save for acknowledging Gideon Cohen's email of
24 March 2019 to which he attached the draft witness statement’’, I did not
engage in the preparation of the witness statement as the Counsel team (with
the input of the WBD GLO team) had taken carriage of it.”®
50. On 26 March 2019, I sent Jane MacLeod a copy of my note of the conference
call with Lord Grabiner on 20 March 2019 and asked for her comments and,
in particular, the names of the two Partners from Norton Rose Fulbright who
had attended the conference.’? Jane MacLeod responded on 28 March 2019
with her note of the conference,®° following which I updated my note and sent
Jane MacLeod a final version.®'
51. On 27 March 2019, I dialled in to a regular call with POL to discuss progress
regarding actions being taken by POL in response to the CiT Judgment.®?
75 WBONO001848.
76 WBONO001847; WBONO001522.
77 WBONO001849.
78 WBONO001850.
79 POL00023260.
® POL00269773.
®1 POL000274040 (email); POL00006397.
®2 POL00023990.
Page 27 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
52. Thereafter, whilst I continued to be copied to some emails relating to the
recusal application and/or the application for permission to appeal,®> I was no
longer leading on this workstream because, as explained above, once the HiT
was adjourned, the WBD GLO team, who had much more detailed knowledge
of the relevant matters than I did, picked up running the procedure of the
recusal and the leave to appeal applications. I did email Jane MacLeod on 1
May 2019 in response to her request as to whether I had been able to settle
the note of the conferences on 18 and 20 March 2019 with Counsel.® I
attached a copy of my previous email to her of 28 March 2019 (to which I had
attached the final version of the note) and confirmed that I regarded the note
as an accurate record of the conferences held.
53. I also joined a small number of calls with POL after March 2019 as follows:
53.1 On 2 April 2019 I attended a telephone call with POL and the Counsel
team in preparation for the hearing of the recusal application;®>
53.2 On 8 May 2019 I attended a meeting with POL;®
53.3 As already noted above, on 9 May 2019 I attended a meeting with POL
and David Cavender KC concerning the scope of any appeal; and
® See for example: POL00270746, POL00274574 (and attachment POL00274575) and
WITN10650119
* POL00274039,
85 WBON0001887 (handwritten note) and WBON0001888 (recently transcribed version).
86 WBON0001895 (handwritten note) and WBON0001896 (recently transcribed version).
Page 28 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
53.4 On 13 May 2019 I attended a call with POL, HSF and Owain Draper
(Junior Counsel instructed by WBD on behalf of POL) to discuss
strategy in light of the outcome of the recusal application.®”
THE REQUEST ASKS ME TO DESCRIBE WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DECISION MAKING AT POL IN RESPECT OF THE RECUSAL APPLICATION AND
THE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL.
54, From my review of the material parts of the WBD files, I can see that I mainly
interacted with Jane MacLeod at POL in relation to the recusal application and
the application for permission to appeal. As far as I am aware, decisions over
day-to-day procedural matters sat with Jane MacLeod as General Counsel at
POL, and then later with Ben Foat after he took over that position. However,
I understood that ultimately the decision on whether to proceed with the
recusal and/or permission to appeal matters was one for the Board of POL.
For example, the email chain sent to me by the Inquiry [POL00022969] shows
that Jane MacLeod clearly saw recusal and appeal decisions as matters
reserved to the Board of POL. A further confirmation of that position can be
seen in the following extract from an email to me from Jane MacLeod of 18
March 2019:
"Many thanks for your help in sorting out DNQC attendance at the call.
He was very balanced in his approach, but confirmed that he thinks we
have a good case on recusal. The Board asked a number of questions
and my sense was that they were ‘calmed’ by his discussion. However
87 WBON0001897 (handwritten note) and WBON0001898 (recently transcribed version).
Page 29 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
they haven't yet made a decision. There is a further board call on
Wednesday at 12.30 and they have requested whether Lord Grabiner
would be available in person at the time — ideally at FD if that’s
possible? Having said that they recognise that he will almost certainly
say the same things as DNQC".88
55. As described above in this statement, Lord Grabiner and I dialled into a POL
Board Meeting on 20 March 2019 as Lord Grabiner was unable to attend POL
in person due to preexisting diary commitments. At that meeting, Lord
Grabiner gave advice, the Board of POL asked Lord Grabiner questions and I
took a handwritten note (being my role, as I understood it - see Jane
MacLeod's email to me of 20 March 2019 which made that plain),®° which I
later used to update my typed note of the conference on 18 March 2019. I
did not give any advice in that call. As I refer to above, by that time I
understood that POL had instructed an additional law firm to provide
independent advice on the recusal issue. That resulted in, I believe, two
partners from Norton Rose Fulbright being with the POL Board in person on
20 March 2019. Lord Grabiner and I dialled out of that Board Meeting after a
short time, and I presume (although I do not know) that the POL Board went
on to discuss the recusal application and took a decision having had, at least,
WBD's note of 17 March 2019,°' Lord Neuberger's note of 14 March 2019,92 a
88 WBONO001780,
8° WBON0001796 (handwritten note), WBON0001794 (recently transcribed version of handwritten
note) and WBONO001804.
°° POL00006397.
°1 WBONO000676.
°2 POL00023228.
Page 30 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
call with Lord Neuberger on 18 March 2019, the Lord Grabiner advice (in the
form of a conference note of 18 March 2019°° and Lord Grabiner's advice by
phone at the Board Meeting of 20 March 2019) and also with the benefit of
two partners from Norton Rose Fulbright in the room with them (although it is
right to state that I do not know what POL's instructions to Norton Rose
Fulbright were, nor am I aware of any advice given by them to POL, save that
I recall that I was told by Jane MacLeod that they had been instructed by POL
to provide independent advice on the recusal).
56. I was not with the POL Board when they were discussing their position(s) on
the recusal application and nor was I there when they took the decision to
proceed with that application. I was informed of that later, on 20 March 2019
by Jane MacLeod during a telephone conversation,®> which instructions I
subsequently relayed to the Counsel team by email.9°
°3 POL00006792.
°4 POL00006397.
°5 WBON0001792 (handwritten note of telephone call with Jane MacLeod on 20 March 2019) and
WBON0001795 (recently transcribed version).
°6 WBONO001805.
Page 31 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
THE REQUEST ASKS THAT I SET OUT WHAT I BELIEVED THE STRATEGY OR
PURPOSE WAS IN MAKING THE RECUSAL APPLICATION OR THE
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL. TO WHAT EXTENT, IF AT ALL,
WAS INCREASING THE CLAIMANTS’ COSTS OR DELAYING THE HORIZON
ISSUES TRIAL TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DECIDING WHETHER TO PURSUE
EITHER APPLICATION?
57. From my review of the material parts of the WBD files, it appears to me that
the strategy or purpose of POL in making the recusal and appeal applications
were:
57.1 To obtain a legally correct CiT Judgment: Based on advice from
Lord Neuberger and Lord Grabiner, it was felt necessary to POL to
obtain a correct application of the law (as it saw it at that point in time)
to the matters in the CiT and to properly manage POL's possible
downside in damages (given the duties the Directors owed to POL).
57.2 To be best placed to manage the trials that were then yet to come:
The potential impact of the CiT Judgment and of the Managing Judge's
findings in the CiT on the trials that were then yet to come (in the
sequence of trials ordered as part of the case management in the GLO
Proceedings) was a strategic factor to POL.
57.3 SPM contract management: The difficulty of seeking to manage POL
contracts with subpostmasters under the 'new' post-CiT regime (with
the implied terms that had been found to exist in the CiT) was seen as
Page 32 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
an important strategic consideration. For example, see the email from
Jane MacLeod dated 18 March 2019.9”
57.4 The best interests of POL: I understood from Jane MacLeod that the
POL Board was concerned to act in the best interests of POL and meet
its fiduciary obligations — see Jane MacLeod email of 16 March 2019.%
57.5 Settlement: I believe that there was some focus on how the CiT could
impact POL's ability to settle the GLO Proceedings — see email from
Jane MacLeod of 18 March 2019.99
58. On the issue of the Claimants' costs, consideration was given to this topic by
the legal team although I do not know what weight was attached to this
particular factor by POL in its decision-making. Both David Cavender KC and
Lord Neuberger did advise POL that the Court of Appeal could be asked to
rewrite the CiT Judgment’ to correct the law such that a re-trial of the CiT,
and the attendant costs could be avoided. Further, I see from my review of
the material parts of the WBD files that I cautioned a number of times that if
the recusal/leave applications resulted in an adjournment of the HiT then there
would be costs consequences. For example, see my email of 14 March 2019
where I state:
®7 WBONO001780.
°8 POL00330036.
°° WBONO001780.
109 POL00022688; POL00023228.
Page 33 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
“please note that in any scenario where HIT is adjourned then there will
be possible increased costs consequences for Claimants that POL
could bear if it is ultimately unsuccessful".1°
59. I do not recall extensive discussions about "delay" to the HiT but I am sure that
delay in itself was not a motive for making the application, but that inevitably
there was risk that the recusal application would cause delay to the HiT.
60. On 18 March 2019 I stated to POL that: "In the absence of a recusal
application and successful appeal the negotiating position of Post Office
seems weak. It is necessary to appreciate that the Claimants are backed by
litigation funders who will sense victory from the CIT Judgment. In the
absence of risk to the Claimants case (or important elements of it) the
funders are likely to insist on recovering the maximum fee they are
contractually able to extract from the Claimants and this will erode the "pot"
available to the Claimants and thereby drive any settlement number required
from Post Office up" [WBON0001784].
61. In essence, the purpose of the recusal and appeal applications was to seek to
correct the perceived legal missteps in the CiT Judgment and to seek a
position where the case was remitted back to a different Judge not tied to
comments made in the CiT.
11 WBONO000661.
Page 34 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
THE REQUEST ASKS ME TO SET OUT MY FULL RECOLLECTION OF WHAT
WAS SAID AT THE CONFERENCE WITH LORD GRABINER ON 18 MARCH 2019.
62. After the time that has passed since March 2019, my best recollection is
represented by both the note of the conference that I prepared (and that Jane
MacLeod commented on)'°? and by my contemporaneous hand written
notes.'°> In addition, Jane MacLeod sent to me, by PDF, her note of that
meeting'® to assist me in the preparation of the more formal note of the
conference that I was to prepare.
THE REQUEST ASKS ME WHY I SOUGHT "TO MAKE THE NOTE A MORE
“NORMAL" NOTE OF A CON™ (SEE POL00022883)? TO WHAT EXTENT, IF AT
ALL, WAS THE CONTENT OR GIST OF THE NOTE DIFFERENT TO WHAT WAS
ACTUALLY DISCUSSED? SETTING OUT ANY SUCH DIFFERENCES.
63. I was aware that the note [POL00022883] was to be submitted to the POL
Board members for their consideration. It therefore had to be an ordered and
coherent recitation of the advice Lord Grabiner had provided in conference on
18 March 2019. In my experience, the note of any conference with any
Counsel is not a verbatim note of a discussion, and nor is it meant or
understood to be. It is not a transcript nor described as such. Such a
conference note is (in my view) meant to be an accurate summary of the
discussion and the advice given in that particular conference. It is also worth
102 POLO0006792.
103 WWBONO001776 (handwritten note) and WBON0001737 (recently transcribed version).
104 WBON0001787; WBONO001788,
195 POLO0006792.
Page 35 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
stating that my handwritten notes’ are not a verbatim record of the
conference. They are simply my notes and my attempt at capturing the advice
given by Lord Grabiner including particular points or phrases, whilst still
participating in the conference itself.
64. The note that was produced [POL00022883] does not differ in any material
way from what was discussed at the conference of 18 March 2019, save that
certain of the more robust comments made by Lord Grabiner were not set out
verbatim, given that I was aware that the note was to go to the Board of POL.
So a phrase such as "stand up be counted" (see my handwritten notes)'”” did
not seem to be appropriate in the finalised version to be submitted to the Board
of POL. In that more formal note, comment is made about Lord Grabiner's
perception of the scope of the Board's duty to POL, so the strength of the views
I understood Lord Grabiner to be conveying is recorded. I believe that Jane
MacLeod (who had participated in the conference and had heard the advice
given by Lord Grabiner) would have understood the above when I stated I was
producing "a more "normal" note of a con”.
106 WWBON0001776 (handwritten note) and WBON0001737 (recently transcribed version).
107 WBONO0001776 (handwritten note) and WBON0001737 (recently transcribed version).
Page 36 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
THE REQUEST ASKS IN SO FAR AS NOT DESCRIBED ABOVE, TO SET OUT MY
VIEW ON WHAT MATTERS POL’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND WBD'S LAY
CLIENT APPEARED TO CONSIDER IMPORTANT WHEN DETERMINING ITS
STRATEGY IN THE BATES LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE DECISIONS ON (A)
WHETHER TO APPEAL THE ORDER MADE IN BATES & O’RS V. POST OFFICE
LIMITED JUDGMENT (NO. 3) “COMMON ISSUES" [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) AND
(B) WHETHER TO ISSUE AN APPLICATION TO SEEK THE RECUSAL OF
FRASER J (AS HE THEN WAS)? DESCRIBE ANY DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS
BETWEEN LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND / OR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
65. I mainly interacted with Jane MacLeod during the period I was substantively
involved in the matter (being 11 March 2019 through to early April 2019). I
can pass a view on what I consider were matters that she believed to be
important, but I do not believe that I interacted directly with the "Lay Client’ (by
which I understand the Inquiry to mean the decision-makers at POL, i.e. POL's
Board) in a substantive way so I cannot comment in that regard. From my
review of the material parts of the WBD files, it appears to me that POL (by
which I mean Jane MacLeod) considered the following issues important in
addition to the points that I already detail in my answer at paragraphs 57.1 to
57.5 of this statement:
65.1 Lord Neuberger's view on the approach of the Judiciary to recusal
and contractual interpretation: It was important to POL that Lord
Neuberger be retained to give a view due to him being the then recent
ex-President Of The Supreme Court and his views on practice,
Page 37 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
procedure and likely Judicial approach — see my email to Jane
MacLeod of 12 March 201918 and see Jane MacLeod's email of 12
March 2019 which states:
"My initial reaction was that we should appoint Lord Grabiner - I have
briefed him in a previous life in a contested hearing against the FCA
and won, and he is available should we need him to appear.
However this morning my thinking is more along the lines of whether
Lord Neuberger might be better given his insight into the thinking of the
Court of Appeal judges and their approach to current trends of
contractual interpretation.”°°
65.2 PR concerns: PR was a concern to POL. POL did not want to be seen
as arrogant — see Jane MacLeod's email of 16 March 2019.119 POL
wanted the "tone" of legal documents setting out its position to be
restrained.'""
65.3 Alternatives to recusal: The POL Board was concerned to understand
if there were any alternatives to recusal, in terms of the strategy to be
deployed — see email from Jane MacLeod of 20 March 20191"? and also
note the questions posed of Lord Grabiner at the POL Board meeting
(to which Lord Grabiner and I dialled in) of 20 March 2019.13
18 WBONO000658.
103 WBONO000655.
"10 WBONO001756.
1 WBONO001805.
2 WBONO0001799.
3 POL00006397.
Page 38 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
65.4 The connection between "procedural unfairness" and recusal:
Jane MacLeod did query how closely tied the recusal and appeal issues
were. There was discussion over the "procedural unfairness" ground
and how the recusal application 'had' to be made for that ground to live
as a credible ground of appeal — see email from Jane MacLeod of 17
March 2019.1'4
65.5 Alignment of views in the new Counsel team: POL was keen to
understand if Lord Neuberger and Lord Grabiner had aligned views on
the merits (they did).
THE INQUIRY ASKS ME ABOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY “DIVERGENCE OF
VIEWS BETWEEN LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND/OR MEMBERS OF THE
[POL] BOARD".
66. From my review of the material parts of the WBD files I can see a reference to
what could be seen as a divergence of views in an e mail chain of 16 March
2019.15 It appears from that e mail chain that I was aware of differing views
existing within the POL Board, but I either never had any detail on that topic
(such as who thought what) given my limited contact with Board members of
POL or now cannot recall any specifics.
THE REQUEST ASKS ME TO SET OUT IN DETAIL MY REFLECTIONS
REGARDING: (A) THE ADVICE THAT I GAVE TO POL AND (B) MY
4 WBONO0001765.
115 WBONO0001755.
Page 39 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
INVOLVEMENT IN THIS MATTER. WITH HINDSIGHT, WOULD I HAVE DONE
ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY?
67. It is important to repeat the apology I have made above.
68. In terms of my involvement, I considered that:
68.1 The function of the legal team (particularly Counsel) was to set out
clearly the legal principles involved in making an application for recusal
and whether there was a sound basis for doing so.
68.2 For the reasons set out in this statement I was involved more as a
conduit for that advice to be given to POL rather than providing the
advice or offering an opinion, acknowledging that I did provide my views
on occasion, as I have identified above.
69. The decision as to whether the recusal application should be made rested
ultimately with POL.
70. Given the narrow scope of my role and my limited knowledge on relevant
matters, as I set out in this statement, and given the robust advice that POL
received from two of the most senior and respected Counsel in the country, I
find it hard to envisage what I would have done differently (at the time) on the
recusal application that I was temporarily involved in. Had the advice received
from the new Counsel team been less strong, then I can see that different
courses of action may have presented themselves, but given the nature of the
advice received, the steps that POL took appeared, at the time, to be proper
and legally sustainable positions to adopt. If I am permitted to speak from a
Page 40 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD29241A-F110-41AD-B1F4-2912498CFEF8
position of hindsight, then I regret that the recusal application was made,
because I can well see — knowing what I now know about the very serious
issues affecting the Horizon system — that it added to the complexity and
challenges faced by the Claimants in the GLO Proceedings.
THE REQUEST ASKS WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT I
WISH TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CHAIR OF THE INQUIRY?
71. There are no other matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the Chair of
the Inquiry.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Page 41 of 56
ANNEX 1
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF
THOMAS MATHEW BEEZER
No. I Document Document Date Control
Reference apes
1 POL00022969 Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 17.03.2019 I POL-
Macleod and Andrew Parsons oor4as
ccing Rodric Williams and Amy
Prime Re: Urgent: Litigation
options dated 17.03.19
2 WBONO0001733__I Draft Common Issues Judgment 08.03.2019 I WBONO0017
dated 08.03.19 32_0004
3 I WBONO000209__ I Advice Note by David Cavender 10.03.2019 I WBD_000079
KC dated 10.03.19 900001
4 I WBON0001464 I Initial Summary of the Common 09.03.2018 I WBD_001334
Issues Judgment dated 09.03.18 000001
5 WBON0001728 =I Email from Andrew Parsons to 11.03.2019
Tom Beezer FW: Common Issues BON OpOI7
Judgment: Instructions Table + ~
Subsequent Actions - Subject to
Legal Privilege dated 11.03.19
6 I WBONO000649_ I Email exchange between Andrew I 09.03.2019 I WBD_000519
Parsons, David Cavender KC, “000001
Gideon Cohen dated 09.03.19
7 IWBONO001466_ I Email exchange between Andrew I 10.03.2019 I WBD_001336
Parsons, David Cavender KC and 000001
Gideon Cohen dated 09.03.19 —
10.03.19
8 I WBONO000205_ I Email chain involving Mark 10.03.2019 I WBD_000075
Underwood, Jane MacLeod, Mark 000001
Davies, Melanie Corfield, Julie
Thomas, Zoe Brauer, Ben Beabey,
Rodric Williams and Andrew
Parsons dated 08.03.2019 —
10.03.2019
9 WBONO0001738 ‘I Handwritten notes by Tom Beezer I 12.03.2019 I WBONO0017
of tel call relating to Appointment of 37_0001
Page 42 of 56
WITNO9510200
WITNO9510200
Counsel for Recusal application
dated 12.03.19
10 I WBONO0001736_ I Typed version of handwritten 12.03.2019 I WBON00017
attendance note by Tom Beezer 35_0001
dated 12.03.19
11 I WBON0001474 ‘I Email exchange between Amy 14.03.2019 I WBD_001344
Prime and Rob Smith dated 000001
12.03.19 — 14.03.19
12 I POL0O0022885 Note on background to possible 13.03.2019 bor 6
recusal application dated 19364
13.03.2019
13. I WBON0001468 I Email exchange between Amy 12.03.2019 I WBD_001338
Prime and Rob Smith dated 000001
12.03.19
14 I WBONO001469 I Index to Bundle — Instructions to 12.03.2019 I WBD_001339
Counsel .000001
15 I POLO0006792 Note of Conference with Lord 18.03.2019 poe
Grabiner KC dated 18.03.19 0018039
16 I WBONO000655 Email chain involving Amy Prime, 12.03.2019 WBD_000525
Mark Underwood, Jane MacLeod, 00000
Rodric Williams and Tom Beezer
dated 11.03.19 — 12.03.19
17 I WBONO0001739 ‘I Email from Tom Beezer to Andrew I 12.03.2019 I WBON00017
Parsons and Amy Prime RE: 38_0001
update [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 12.03.19
18 IWBONO001740_ I Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 12.03.2019 I WBON00017
MacLeod RE: Lord Pannick 39_0001
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
12.03.19
19 I POL00022877 Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom I 12.03.2019 I POL-
Breezer, Amy Prime and Andrew 0019356
Parsons re: update [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated
12.03.2019
20 IWBONO0001734 I Tom Beezer's handwritten notes 12.03.2019 nvm
referring to call on 12.03.2019 33_0001
Page 43 of 56
WITNO9510200
WITNO9510200
21 IWBONO0001735_ I Typed version of hwr attendance 12.03.2019 I WBON00017
note dated 12.03.2019 340001
22 I WBONO001741 Email from Tom Beezer to Amy 12.03.2019 I WBON00017
Prime RE: update [WBDUK- 40_0001
AC.FID26896945] dated 12.03.19
23 I WBONO001742 I Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 13.03.2019 I WBON00017
MacLeod RE: FW: MH QC 41-0001
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
13.03.19
24 IWBONO001743 I Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 13.03.2019 I WBON00017
MacLeod Re: MH QC [WBDUK- 42_0001
AC.FID26896945] dated 13.03.19
25 I WBONO0001748 I Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 14.03.2019 I WBON00017
MacLeod Re: QCs dated 14.03.19 47_0001
26 I WBONO0001750 I Handwritten notes of Tom Beezer I 15.03.2019 eanrmae
Re: appointment of Counsel dated 49_
15.03.2019
27 IWBON0001751_ I Typed version of handwritten note I 15.03.2019 pot?
of Tom Beezer dated 15.03.2019 $0_0001
28 IWBONO0001753 I Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom I 15.03.2019 Oot?
Beezer RE: recusal steps for today 52_0001
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
15.03.19
29 IWBON0001754 I Email from Tom Beezer to Rob 15.03.2019 I WBON00017
Smith, Andrew Parsons and Amy 53_0001
Prime RE: Post Office Group
Litigation - Appeal [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 12.03.19
— 15.03.19
30 I POL00023227 Email chain from Tom Beezer to 14.03.2019 I POL-
Jane Macleod ccing Andrew 0019706
Parsons and Amy Prime re: QCs
dated 14.03.19
31 I POL00023228 Bates and Others v Post Office 14.03.2019 I POL-
Limited. Observations on Recusal 0019707
Application dated 14.03.19
32 I POL00023096 Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 14.03.2019 I POL-
Macleod ccing Andrew Parsons 0019875
Page 44 of 56
WITNO9510200
WITNO9510200
and Amy Prime RE: QCs dated
14.03.19
33 I POL00023097 Note on background to possible 13.03.2019 Mors 76
recusal application dated 5
13.03.2019
34 I WBONO0001745 I Handwritten notes of Tom Beezer I 14.03.2019 I WBON00017
Re: appointment of Counsel dated 44_0001
14.03.19
35 I WBONO0001747 I Typed version of handwritten 14.03.2019 I WBON00017
attendance note of Tom Beezer 460001
dated 14.03.19
36 I WBONO001744 I Handwritten notes from Tom 14.03.2019 I WBON00017
Beezer Re: appointment of 43_0001
Counsel dated 14.03.19
37 I WBONO001746 ‘I Typed version of handwritten 14.03.2019 I WBON00017
attendance note by Tom Beezer 45_0001
dated 14.03.19
38 I WBONO000674 = I Email chain involving Tom Beezer, I 17.03.2019 I WBD_000544
Jane MacLeod, David Cavender 000001
KC and Gideon Cohen dated
14.03.19 — 17.03.19
39 I WBONO000664 Email chain involving Tom Beezer, I 15.03.2019 I WBD_000534
Jane MacLeod, David Cavender 900004
KC, Gideon Cohen and Amy Prime
dated 14.03.19 — 15.03.19
40 I WBONO0001756 I Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom I 16.03.2019 I WBON00017
Beezer and Andrew Parsons RE: 55_0001
URGENT: Litigation Options -
CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT
TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE. [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 16.03.19
41 I WBONO0001493__I Email chain involving Tom Beezer, I 15.03.2019 Wenwor
Andrew Parsons and David 000004
Cavender KC dated 15.03.19
42 I WBONO0001494 I Draft Recusal Note dated 15.03.2019 I WBD_001364
15.03.2019 “000001
43 I WBONO0001757 ‘I Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 16.03.2019 I WBON00017
MacLeod and Andrew Parsons RE: 56_0001
URGENT: Litigation Options -
Page 45 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT
TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE. [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 16.03.19
44
POL00022961
WBD: Bates & others v Post Office
Limited [DRAFT] Recusal Note
dated 16.03.19
16.03.2019
POL-
0019440
45
WBONO001495
Email exchange between Tom
Beezer, Andrew Parsons and
David Cavender KC dated
15.03.19
15.03.2019
WBD_001365
-000001
46
WBONO0001498
Draft Recusal Note dated 16.03.19
16.03.2019
WBD_001368
.000001
47
WBONO0001499
Email exchange between Tom
Beezer, Andrew Parsons and
David Cavender KC dated
15.03.19 — 16.03.19
16.03.2019
WBD_001369
.000001
48
WBON0001500
Draft Recusal Note dated 16.03.19
16.03.2019
WBD_001370
000001
49
WBONO0001759
Email from Tom Beezer to Jane
MacLeod and Andrew Parsons RE:
URGENT: Litigation Options -
CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT
TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE. [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 16.03.19
16.03.2019
WBONO0017
58_0001
50
POL00023912
WBD - Bates & others v Post
Office Limited - Recusal Note
dated 16.03.19
16.03.2019
POL-
0020391
51
POL00023913
WBD - Bates & others v Post
Office Limited - DRAFT Recusal
Note dated 16.03.19
16.03.2019
POL-
0020392
52
POL00330036
Email chain involving Jane
MacLeod, Tim Parker, Thomas
Cooper, Tom Beezer and Andrew
Parsons dated 15.03.19 — 16.03.19
16.03.2019
POL-
0176165
53
POL00023231
Email from Jane Macleod to Tom
Beezer and Andrew Parsons ccing
Rodric Williams and Amy Prime re:
Urgent: Litigation options -
Confidential and Subject to Legal
Privilege dated 16.03.19
16.03.2019
POL-
0019710
Page 46 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
54
WBONO0001763
WBD: Bates & Others v Post Office
Limited - Recusal Note dated
16.03.19
16.03.2019
WBONO00017
62_0001
55
POL00022970
WBD Bates & others v Post Office
Limited - Recusal Note dated
16.03.19
16.03.2019
POL-
0019449
56
WBONO0001769
Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom
Beezer and Andrew Parsons RE:
URGENT: Litigation Options -
CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT
TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE. [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBON00017
68_0001
57
POL00022973
Email chain from Tom Beezer to
Jane Macleod ccing Rodric
Williams Re: Urgent Litigation
Options dated 17.03.19
17.03.2019
POL-
0019452
58
POL00022974
WBD Bates & Others v Post Office
Limited [Draft] Recusal Note dated
17.03.2019
17.03.2019
POL-
0019453
59
WBONO001501
Email chain involving Tom Beezer,
Rob Smith and Lord Grabiner KC
dated 17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBD_001371
000001
60
WBONO0001502
Draft Recusal Note dated
17.03.2019
17.03.2019
WBD_001372
.000001
61
WBONO001772
Email from Anthony Grabiner to
Tom Beezer et al Re: URGENT
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBONO00017
71_0001
62
WBONO0001773
Email from David Neuberger to
Tom Beezer Re: URGENT
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBONO0017
72_0001
63
WBONO001774
Email from Tom Beezer to Jane
MacLeod and Rodric Williams RE:
short update [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBONO00017
73_0001
64
WBONO0001749
Handwritten notes of Tom Beezer
Re: appointment of Counsel dated
15.03.19
15.03.2019
WBONO0017
48_0001
Page 47 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
65
WBONO001752
Typed version of handwritten tel
attendance note by Tom Beezer
dated 15.03.19
15.03.2019
WBONO00017
51_0001
66
WBON0001493
Email exchange between Tom
Beezer, Andrew Parsons and
David Cavender KC dated
15.03.19
15.03.2019
WBD_001363
-000001
67
WBONO001764
Email from Rob Smith to Tom
Beezer Re: my voicemail
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
16.03.19
16.03.2019
WBON00017
63_0001
68
WBONO001767
Email from Tom Beezer to Jane
MacLeod RE: URGENT: Litigation
Options - CONFIDENTIAL AND
SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE.
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBON00017
66_0001
69
WBONO001770
Email from Tom Beezer to Jane
MacLeod and Andrew Parsons RE:
URGENT: Litigation Options -
CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT
TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE. [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBON00017
69_0001
70
WBONO001771
Email from Tom Beezer to Jane
MacLeod and Andrews Parsons
RE: URGENT: Litigation Options -
CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT
TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE. [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBON00017
70_0001
71
WBONO001778
Email from Tom Beezer to Jane
MacLeod RE: Grabiner [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 18.03.19
18.03.2019
WBON00017
77_0001
72
WBONO001777
Tom Beezer Handwritten Notes-
18th March 2019
18.03.2019
WBONO0017
76_0001
73
WBONO001775
Typed version of handwritten tel
attendance note by Tom Beezer
dated 18.03.19
18.03.2019
WBONO0017
74_0001
74
WBON0001779
Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom
Beezer RE: logistics for today
18.03.2019
WBONO00017
78_0001
Page 48 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
18.03.19
75
WBONO001765
Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom
Beezer RE: URGENT: Litigation
Options - CONFIDENTIAL AND
SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE.
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBON00017
64_0001
76
POL00023230
Extracts from the Fraser J
Judgment that Demonstrate Bias
17.03.2019
POL-
0019709
77
POL00023087
Email Chain from Tom Beezer to
Jane Macleod CCing Andrew
Parsons, Rodric Williams and Amy
Prime re: Urgent: litigation options
dated 17.03.19
17.03.2019
POL-
0019566
78
WBONO0001768
Email from Anthony Grabiner QC.
to RobSmith cc Tom Beezer Re:
URGENT [WBDUkK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 17.03.19
17.03.2019
WBON00017
67_0001
79
WBONO001776
Tom Beezer Handwritten notes
RE: Lord Grabiner QC conference
at One Essex Court dated
18.03.19
18.03.2019
WBON00017
75_0001
80
WBONO001737
Tom Beezer notes re: Lord
Grabiner QC conference dated
18.03.19
18.03.2019
WBONO0017
36_0001
81
WBONO001780
Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom
Beezer, Andrew Parsons and
Rodric Williams RE: Update from
the Board call dated 18.03.19
18.03.2019
WBON00017
79_0001
82
WBONO001784
Email from Tom Beezer to
Rodric Williams, Jane MacLeod
and Andrew Parsons RE:
Update from the Board call -
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
dated 19.03.2019
19.03.2019
WBONO0017
83_0001
83
WBONO001785
Email from Tom Beezer to Jane
MacLeod RE: Update from the
Board call - [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 19.03.19
19.03.2019
WBON00017
84_0001
Page 49 of 56
WITNO9510200
WITNO9510200
84 IWBONO0001782 I Tom Beezer Handwritten notes 19.03.2019 I WBON00017
dated 19th March 2019 810001
85 I WBONO001781 Typed version of attendance note I 19.03.2019 I WBON00017
of Tom Beezer dated 19.03.2019 80_0001
86 I WBONO001786 Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 19.03.2019 I WBONO0017
MacLeod RE: Grabiner dated 85_0001
19.03.19
87 IWBONO001804 I Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 20.03.2019 I WBON00018
MacLeod RE: Dial in details 03_0001
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
20.03.19
88 IWBONO001790_ I Email from Tom Beezer to Jade 19.03.2019 I WBON00017
Cassell RE: 11.45 tomorrow 89_0001
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
19.03.19
89 I WBONOO001791 Tom Beezer- Handwritten notes 20.03.2019 Se ooor
dated 20-3-2019 0001
90 I WBON0001793_ I Typed version of handwritten notes I 20.03.2019 eo potr
by Tom Beezer dated 20.03.2019 0001
91 IWBONO0001803 I Email from Tom Beezer to Andrew I 20.03.2019 Heo pots
Parsons, Gideon Cohen et al RE: 2_0001
recusal [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 20.03.19
92 IWBONO001511 I Email exchange between Jane 19.03.2019 I WBD_001381
MacLeod, Tom Beezer, Andrew 000001
Parsons and Rodric Williams dated
18.03.19 — 19.03.19
93 I WBONO001784 Email from Tom Beezer to Rodric 19.03.2019 I WBONO0017
Williams, Jane MacLeod and 83_0001
Andrew Parsons RE: Update from
the Board call - [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 19.03.19
94 IWBONO001789 Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom_ I 19.03.2019 se ooor
Beezer FW: Post Office Litigation - -
CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT
TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE dated
19.03.19
Page 50 of 56
WITNO9510200
WITNO9510200
95 IWBONO001512 I Email from Gideon Cohen to Tom =I 19.03.2019 I WBD_001382
Beezer dated 19.03.19 “000008
96 I POL00022883 Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 20.03.2019 I POL-
Macleod ccing Andrew Parsons, 0019362
Rodric Williams and others, RE:
Post Office Litigation dated
20.03.19
97 I POL00022884 Bates and Others v Post Office 14.03.2019 I POL-
Limited. Observations on Recusal 0019363
Application dated 14.03.19
98 I WBONO0001797 I Email from Tom Beezer to Gideon I 20.03.2019 I WBON00017
Cohen RE: Lord Grabiner 96_0001
Conference Note 18-3-2019
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
20.03.19
99 I WBONO001800 I Email from Gideon Cohen to Tom I 20.03.2019 I WBON00017
Beezer Re: Lord Grabiner 99_0001
Conference Note 18-3-2019
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
20.03.16
100 I WBONO001801 I Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 20.03.2019 woes
MacLeod RE: Post Office Litigation 00_0001
- CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT
TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 20.03.19
101 I WBONO0001799__I Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom I 20.03.2019 BON OpOI7
Beezer RE: recusal dated 20.03.19 8000
102 I WBONO0000681 I Email chain involving Jane 20.03.2019 ‘eoeree
MacLeod, Tom Beezer, Gideon .
Cohen, David Cavender KC,
Stephanie Wood and Andrew
Parsons dated 20.03.19
103 I POL00268876 Email chain from Jane MacLeod to I 20.03.2019 I POL-BSFF-
Tom Beezer RE: recusal dated 0106939
20.03.19
104 I WBONO001515__I Email chain involving Jane 20.03.2019 I WBD_001385
MacLeod, Tom Beezer, Gideon 000001
Cohen, David Cavender KC and
Stephanie Wood dated 20.03.19
Page 51 of 56
WITNO9510200
WITNO9510200
105 I WBON0001796_ I Tom Beezer's Handwritten notes 20.03.2019 I WBON00017
re: POL Board Dial-in dated 98.0001
20.03.19
106 I WBONO0001794 I Typed version of handwritten notes I 20.03.2019 I WBON00017
by Tom Beezer dated 20.03.19 93_0001
107 I POL00006397 Note of conferences on 18/3/2019 I 20.03.2019 I POL-
and 20/3/2019 with Lord Grabiner oo17702
ac
108 I WBONO0001792_ ‘I Tom Beezer's Handwritten notes 20.03.2019 I WBON00017
dated 20-3-2019 910001
109 I WBON0001795__I Typed version of handwritten note I 20.03.2019 I WBON00017
by Tom Beezer dated 20.03.19 94_0001
110 I WBONO0001805_ I Email from Tom Beezer to Gideon I 20.03.2019 I WBON00018
Cohen et al RE: Application docs 04_0001
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
20.03.19
111 I WBON0001806_ I Email from Anthony Grabiner to 20.03.2019 oof pot8
Tom Beezer Re: Application docs _0001
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
20.03.19
112 I WBONO0001516__I Email from Gideon Cohen to Tom =I 20.03.2019 WBD 001386
Beezer, Andrew Parsons, Dave .
Panaech and Amy Prime dated
20.03.19
113 I WBON0001807 I Email from Gideon Cohen to Amy I 20.03.2019 beooore
Prime, Tom Beezer et al RE: 0001
Application docs [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 20.03.19
114 I POL00023769 Email from Amy Prime to Jane 20.03.2019 I POL-
MacLeod and cc others RE: 0020248
Recusal application - Draft
Documents dated 20.03.19
115 I WBON0001808 = I Email from Amy Prime to Jane 20.03.2019 wooo
MacLeod, Mark Underwood, Ben 7
Foat and others re CIT Judgment
Legal Action Progress Check-in
dated 20.03.19
Page 52 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
116
WBONO0000687
Email chain involving Amy Prime,
Jane MacLeod and Tom Beezer
dated 20.03.19 — 21.03.19
21.03.2019
WBD_000557
.000001
117
POL00023980
Email chain between Tom Breezer,
Jane MacLeod, Andrew Parsons,
Rodric Williams and others Re:
recusal - reactive media statement
dated 21.03.19
21.03.2019
POL-
0020459
118
POL00022982
Email chain from Melanie Corfield
to Jane Macleod, Tom Beezer and
Amy Prime ccing Andrew Parsons,
Dave Panaech and others, re:
Recusal application - Filed
documents dated 21.03.19
21.03.2019
POL-
0019461
119
WBONO000200
Email exchange between David
Cavender KC, Tom Beezer,
Andrew Parsons, Gideon Cohen
and Owain Draper dated 21.03.19
— 22.03.19
22.03.2019
WBD_000070
-000001
120
WBONO0001846
Email from Tom Beezer to Amy
Prime, Jane MacLeod et al RE:
Recusal Application - Timetable
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
21.03.19
21.03.2019
WBON00018
45_0001
121
WBON0001848
Email from Andrew Parsons to
Tom Beezer, Rob Smith and Amy
Prime RE: Recusal Application —
Timetable dated 21.03.19 —
22.03.19
22.03.2019
WBONO0018
47_0001
122
WBON0O001847
Email from Gideon Cohen to Amy
Prime Re: Recusal Application -
Timetable [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 21.03.19
21.03.2019
WBON00018
46_0001
123
WBONO001522
Email chain involving Amy Prime,
Gideon Cohen, Stephanie Wood,
Andrew Parsons, Tom Beezer,
Dave Panaech and Lord Grabiner
KC dated 22.03.19 — 26.03.19
26.03.2019
WBD_001392
-000001
124
WBON0001849
Email from Tom Beezer to Gideon
Cohen, Amy Prime et al RE:
25.03.2019
WBONO0018
48_0001
Page 53 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
Witness Statement [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 25.03.19
125
WBONO001850
Email from Andrew Parsons, to
Tom Beezer, Owain Draper et al
RE: Witness Statement [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 22.03.19
— 25.03.19
25.03.2019
WBON00018
49_0001
126
POL00023260
Email from Tom Beezer to Jane
Macleod ccing Andrew Parsons
and Amy Prime re: Updated Note
dated 26.03.19
26.03.2019
POL-
0019739
127
POL00269773
Email from Jane MacLeod to Tom
Beezer RE: Post Office - Note of
calls with AG QC dated 28.03.2019
28.03.2019
POL-BSFF-
0107836
128
POL00274040
Email exchange between Jane
MacLeod and Tom Beezer dated
28.03.19
28.03.2019
POL-BSFF-
0112103
129
POL00023990
Email from Amy Prime to Jane
MacLeod, Mark Underwood, Ben
Foat and others re CIT Judgment
Legal Action Progress Check-in
dated 27.03.19
27.03.2019
POL-
0020469
130
POL00270746
Email from Andrew Parsons to
Jane MacLeod, Rodric Williams,
Amy Prime and others RE: Appeal
- next steps and call on Monday?
dated 14.04.2019
14.04.2019
POL-BSFF-
0108809
131
POL00274574
Email chain between Andrew
Parsons, David Neuberger and
Lord Grabiner Re: Recusal appeal
judgment dated 12.05.2019
12.05.2019
POL-BSFF-
0112637
132
POL00274575
Post Office Group Litigation:
DRAFT Briefing on the recusal
appeal judgment dated 12.05.19
12.05.2019
POL-BSFF-
0112638
133
WITN10650119
Email between David Neuberger to
Andrew Parsons: EN 19 RE:
A1/2019/0855 POST OFFICE
LIMITED V BATES AND OTHERS
dated 14.03.19
14.03.2019
WITN106501
19
Page 54 of 56
WITNO9510200
WITNO9510200
134 I POL00274039 Email from Tom Breezer to Jane 01.05.2019 I POL-BSFF-
MacLeod cc'd Veronica Branton, o112102
Ben Foat and others re: Post
Office -Note of calls with AG QC
[WBDUK-AC.FID26896945] dated
01.05.2019
135 I WBONO0001887 ‘I Tom Beezer's handwritten notes 02.04.2019 I WBONO0018
re: AGQC dated 2nd April 2019 86_0001
136 I WBONO001888 I Typed version of handwritten note I 02.04.2019 I WBONO0018
by Tom Beezer dated 02.04.19 87_0001
137 I WBONO0001895__I Tom Beezer's handwritten notes 08.05.2019 I WBON00018
Re: POL Board Meeting dated 94_0001
08.05.19
138 I WBONO0001896__I Typed version of handwritten 08.05.2019 I WBON000189
attendance note by Tom Beezer 5.0001
dated 08.05.19
139 I WBONO001897 I Tom Beezer's handwritten notes 13.05.2019 I weonoo0189
RE: POL Call dated 13.05.19 6_0001
140 I WBON0001898 I Typed version of handwritten note I 13.05.2019 ONO 189
by Tom Beezer dated 13.05.19 -
141 I WBON0000676__I Recusal Note dated 17.03.2019 17.03.2019 Hines haa
142 I POL00022688 Advice from DCQC on the merits 10.03.2019 ore 67
of appealing the High Court
judgment in Bates v PO - Group
Litigation dated 10.03.19
143 I WBON0000661 Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 14.03.2019 tooo
MacLeod, David Cavender KC and 1
Gideon Cohen dated 14.03.19
144 I WBONO0001787 I Email from Diane Blanchard to 19.03.2019 I WBON000178
Tom Beezer RE: Notes from 80001
conversation with DNQC dated
19.05.19
145 I WBONO001788 ‘I Jane MacLeod's handwritten notes I 19.03.2019 wen ots
of conference with Lord Neuberger 70001
KC on 18.03.2019
Page 55 of 56
WITNO09510200
WITNO9510200
146 I WBONO000658_ I Email from Tom Beezer to Jane 12.03.2019 I WBD_000528.
Macleod dated 12.03.19 900004
147 I WBONO0000655 I Email chain involving Amy Prime, I 12.03.2019 I WBD_000525.
Mark Underwood, Jane MacLeod, 000001
Rodric Williams and Tom Beezer
dated 11.03.2019 — 12.03.2019
148 I WBON0001755 =I Email from Amy Prime to Tom 16.03.2019 I WBON000175
Beezer and Andrew Parsons RE: 4.0001
URGENT: Litigation Options -
CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT
TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE dated
16.03.19
Page 56 of 56