WITN11800106
WITN11800106
Ms K. Kneller
Criminal Cases Review
Commission
23 Stephenson Street
Birmingham
B2 4BH
Date RE: DISCLOSURE TO CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION (CCRC)
8 June 2022
Post Office .
Finsbury Dials Introduction
20 Finsbury Street
ceov ong On 18 March 2022, our legal representatives, Peters & Peters, emailed your colleagues Miles
Trent and Anona Bisping to make the CCRC aware that material relevant to the case of Mrs
Dorothy Bontoft, referred by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) for appeal
on 20 December 2021, had just been discovered. Regrettably, this material included
transcripts of Mrs Bontoft’s cautioned interviews in which she admitted to taking money
from her post office to pay bills and fund personal expenses. Clearly, the CCRC would have
wanted to review this material in determining whether to refer Mrs Bontoft's case and it may
well have led to a different decision by the CCRC in respect of that referral.
Itis highly regrettable that Post Office Limited ("POL") had not identified and disclosed this
material to the CCRC and Mrs Bontoft's family earlier. On discovery of the material, we were,
however, able to act swiftly and we co-ordinated with the Court of Appeal and Mrs Bontoft's
legal representatives so that Mrs Bontoft’s family were able to consider their position and
ultimately abandon the appeal before the scheduled court hearing. I have personally written
to Mrs Bontoft’s husband to apologise.
I have also asked for an explanation as to why this material was not disclosed. This letter
sets out that explanation and the remedial steps that POL (together with Peters & Peters) is
taking in relation to compliance with s.17 Notices and the Post-Conviction Disclosure
Exercise (“the PCDE”) going forward.
In summary, the issue arose because the version of one repository that Peters & Peters were
using for the PCDE - the Electronic Filing Cabinet ("the EFC”) - appears to contain different
material to the version POL holds for its business activities. Peters & Peters had access at the
start of the PCDE to the EFC retrieved by solicitors Womble Bond Dickinson (“WBD") in the
context of the Post Office Group Litigation (Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited) (“the
Group Action") and were unaware that POL had access to another, non-identical version.
Neither POL nor Peters & Peters were aware that two discrete versions of the EFC existed.
On behalf of POL, I would like to apologise for this oversight and the inconvenience that this
issue may have caused. I would like, moreover, to assure the CCRC that POL has taken steps
to prevent this issue occurring again.
Post Office Limited is registered in England and Wale:
<d office: Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street
fice and the Post Office logo are registered tradi
ered No. 2154540,
2Y 9AQ,
st Offce Limited postoffice.co.uk
WITN11800106
WITN11800106
Background to identification and review of material in the EFC held in WBD's Data Room
The EFC was a repository used by POL for the storage of documentary material relating to
Post Office branches. As such, it was identified as a source of material potentially responsive
to the CCRC’s s.17 Notices and relevant to the PCDE. In January 2020, WBD (who prior to
Peters & Peters’ instruction by POL, were assisting POL respond to s.17 requests) emailed
Peters & Peters and POL regarding the preservation of the EFC. In that email, WBD
described how the EFC was used and where it was stored. Peters & Peters understood from
that email and from subsequent enquiries with RMG that this was the only version of the
EFC (“the WBD EFC"). Between April and May 2020, search terms were executed across
the WBD EFC. Any material from the WBD EFC that was found to be responsive to those
search terms was then reviewed for disclosure.
Peters & Peters’ understanding that it had searched the only version of the EFC was
recorded in the Disclosure Management Document. That understanding was incorrect. In
fact, POL had retained a version of the EFC (“the POL EFC’) for its business activities, which
was not duplicative of the WBD EFC.
Recent discovery of additional documents on the POL EFC
For individuals involved in the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme (“ICRAMS"),
the Group Action, and the Historical Shortfall Scheme (“HSS”), POL undertook, and
continues to undertake, searches for material relevant to the determination of cases in those
forums ("the non-PCDE Searches’). It appears that the non-PCDE Searches were executed
across the POL EFC. The majority of the Hamilton & Others appellants had participated in
ICRAMS and/or the Group Action and therefore the POL EFC had already been searched for
these individuals.
However, the non-PCDE Searches were not conducted for any individual who was not part
of ICRAMS, the Group Action, or subsequently the HSS. That included some of the later
CCRC applicants and the majority of potential future appellants (“PFAs").
As you are aware, an Assurance Exercise was carried out by Peters & Peters into POL’s
historical compliance with s.17 Notices, the results of which were communicated to the
CCRC by letter in August 2021. The distinctions in the content of material available for
CCRC applicants depending on whether the non-PCDE searches had been carried out for
them were raised in that letter.
During a meeting on 24 September 2021 between POL, Peters & Peters and the CCRC, the
CCRC explained that some of the extra material that derived from the non-PCDE searches
had been useful to it, especially in cases where POL had no, or very limited, material
regarding the original prosecution. Consequently, POL and Peters & Peters indicated that
they would assess which documents collated in the non-PCDE searches might be potentially
responsive to s.17 Notices and, therefore, of use to the CCRC in reviewing applications made
to it by PFAs.
postoffice.co.uk
WITN11800106
WITN11800106
Peters & Peters concluded that some material gathered in the non-PCDE searches might be
responsive to s.17 Notices (referred to in correspondence with the CCRC as “Category A
Material"). POL thereafter carried out searches to identify Category A Material for all CCRC
applicants and, to treat all PFAs equally, decided to carry out the same exercise for non-
CCRC applicants.
Searches for Category A Material commenced in February 2022 for CCRC applicants and the
appellants whose appeals were due to be heard on 22-23 March 2022. This led to the
discovery of new documents in the POL EFC for Mrs Bontoft, which were not in the WBD
EFC.
Remedial steps
Save for some hard copy branch files, which we await from an external hard copy archive,
the searches for Category A Material have been completed for all CCRC applicants and the
results have been transmitted to the CCRC. The same exercise is now being carried out for
all remaining individuals within the scope of the PCDE and all PFAs prosecuted by agencies
other than POL.
Finally, may I again apologise, on behalf of POL, to the CCRC for not identifying this
difference in data sets sooner. As I hope is evident from the above, we have conducted a
thorough review and have taken appropriate remedial steps to ensure that the CCRC now
has material identified from the EFC (and other Category A material, including branch files
and transaction corrections) for all rejected, provisionally rejected and current applicants, and
we will ensure that disclosure is made from these repositories pursuant to any s17 Notice
received from the CCRC in relation to future applicants. Should you have any questions
regarding anything raised in this letter, please let me know so we can address them”
Yours sincerely,
Simon Recaldin
Director Historical Matters
postoffice.co.uk