WITN11800107
WITN11800107
CCRC
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Private and Confidential
Simon Recaldin
Director Historical Matters
Post Office Your ref:
20 Finsbury Street Our ref: 00660/2021
London
EC2Y 9AQ 22 June 2022
Dear Mr Recaldin,
RE: Post Office Limited (POL) disclosure to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission (CCRC)
Thank you for your letter, dated 8 June 2022, and for the update you have
provided regarding the serious disclosure failings which occurred in Mrs
Bontoft’s case.
As you recognise in your letter, it is highly regrettable that POL did not identify
and disclose the relevant case material to the CCRC earlier. By service of a
statutory notice under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 the CCRC
had required all case material to be provided and was assured by POL that
none existed for the case in question. Clearly that was incorrect. The CCRC
later referred Mrs Bontoft’s case to the Court of Appeal, on the understanding
that no relevant Post Office material existed. As you also recognise, the CCRC
would have wanted to review the material which was subsequently discovered,
and that material may well have impacted on the CCRC’s decision in the case.
The CCRC considers this to be a matter of deep concern. It is all the more
concerning in view of the history of problems with POL compliance with CCRC
statutory notices, which prompted my letter to POL Chief Executive, Nick Read,
on 23 February 2021 (copy enclosed). As I emphasised in that letter, the CCRC
can only continue to discharge its important statutory function if we can ensure
that public bodies comply promptly and fully with the statutory notices which we
serve upon them. In response to my letter, Mr Read reiterated POL’s
commitment to ensuring that it complies with all CCRC section 17 notices (letter
dated 1 March 2021, copy enclosed).
Therefore, while I thank you for the assurances which appear at the end of your
letter, in view of the background you will understand why the CCRC remains
concerned about the risk of further problems in the future regarding compliance
with section 17 notices. It simply is not acceptable for the CCRC to receive one
response in reply to a statutory notice during a case review, only for an entirely
different response to emerge once the date of an appeal hearing approaches.
CCRC, 23 Stephenson Street, Birmingham, B2 4BH DX: 715466 Birmingham 41
e: infor ef w: Www.ccrc.gov.uk
twitter: @ccrcupdate Instagram: the_ccrc
Independently investigating miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
WITN11800107
WITN11800107
Such failures are harmful for the interests of justice in the cases in question;
and are also reputationally damaging for the CCRC. In that connection, I should
point out that we are considering adding a caveat to any future referral
‘Statement of Reasons’ documents, to the effect that the decision is based upon
the evidential position as presented by POL at the point of the CCRC referral,
but there remains a possibility of further relevant information being identified
after the CCRC’s decision.
Finally, I would like to welcome the remedial steps which POL has put in place
to ensure that the error which occurred in this instance does not happen again. I
would also urge POL and its representatives to communicate with the CCRC at
the earliest possible stage, providing full details, if any other S17 compliance
issues do emerge in the future.
Yours sincerely,
Karen Kneller
Chief Executive
Criminal Cases Review Commission