WITN10350103 - CACD - Reasons in support of Order of 10.03.2021 regarding Disclosure Applications of Scott Darlington, Stanley Fell, Peter Holmes (deceased) Rubina Shaheen and Pamela Lock v/s Post Office Limited

Evidence on official site

WITN10350103
WITN10350103

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

202001568-B3

On referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission 202001569-B3
202001575-B3
202001576-B3

202002979-B3

Scott Darlington
Stanley Fell
Peter Holmes (deceased)
Rubina Shaheen

Pamela Lock

Post Office Limited

REASONS IN SUPPPORT OF ORDER OF 10.3.2021 REGARDING DISCLOURE
APPLICATIONS

REASONS:

Application for disclosure

1. There appear to be two principal aspects to the disclosure application. First, it is said that
the relevant period for the purposes of disclosure should not be limited to 1999/2000 to
2013 but should be extended to include post-2013 material provided that it is relevant to
the issues in the appeals. Secondly, it is submitted that there are “missing areas of
disclosure” in relation to knowledge of Horizon errors at management level within the Post
Office, and in relation to the reason that Jenkins did not give evidence in the trial before

Fraser J.

2. The parameters of disclosure, including the relevant period, have been known to the
Appellants since the Respondent served its Disclosure Management Document in or around

August 2020. The court considered questions of disclosure at a directions hearing on 18
WITN10350103
WITN10350103

November 2020. There was a further hearing on other issues on 17 December 2020. In
these circumstances, the Appellants have had ample opportunity to raise the relevant period
with the court before this late stage. The Appellants seem to accept that, if the court were
to sanction this late change, the date for the hearing of the appeals — which is imminent -
would be imperilled. In our view, the interests of justice would not be served by delay to
these appeals, which affect a great many people besides the Appellants who are making the
current application. In any event, we are not persuaded that the abandonment of the 2013
cut-off point would make a material difference to the questions which the court will

determine.

3. Nor do we accept that there are any “missing areas of disclosure” that have not been
adequately explained by the Respondent’s lawyers. The suggestion that the Respondent is
using the concept of proportionality as a “smokescreen” is misplaced and not helpful.
There is no justification for the suggestion that the Respondent’s large and experienced
legal team (which includes a substantial number of barristers led by two Queen’s Counsel)
have failed to ensure that proper disclosure has been provided to the Appellants. On the

contrary, it appears that the review has been thoroughly and professionally conducted.

4. We agree with the Respondent that the disclosure process should not become open-ended.
The approach adopted by the Respondent and sanctioned by the court remains

proportionate and just.

Application to inspect documents
5. The court will not make directions to permit the Appellants’ or Respondent’s solicitors to

inspect documents. It is neither necessary nor proportionate for such a step to be taken.

10 March 2021