WITN10350100
WITN10350100
Witness Name: Brian Altman
Statement No.: WITN10350100
Dated: 4 April 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT
OF BRIAN ALTMAN
I, BRIAN ALTMAN KC, barrister, of 2 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4BU, will say as
follows:
Introduction
1. lama barrister practising from Chambers at the above address. I was called
to the Bar by Middle Temple in July 1981. I was appointed Junior Treasury
Counsel in 1997, Senior Treasury Counsel in 2002, and I was appointed First
Senior Treasury Counsel between 2010 and 2013. I have been a Recorder of
the Crown Court since 2002, I am a Bencher of Middle Temple, and I am the
current joint Head of Chambers at 2 Bedford Row, London.
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
(the “Inquiry”) with the matters set out in the Rule 9 Request dated 31
October 2023 (the “Request”).
Page 1 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
Professional Privi
Following my confirmation of the receipt of the Request by email on 31
October 2023, on the same day I emailed the Inquiry Legal Team for express
confirmation that Post Office Limited (“POL”), my client, had waived Legal
Professional Privilege as regards the matters with which I am asked to deal
in the Request. On 7 November 2023, I received an email from the Inquiry
Legal Team “that POL has waived privilege over matters which you have
been asked to deal with in your rule 9 request”. The email from the Inquiry
Legal Team also drew my attention to the extent of POL’s agreed waiver and
the Chair's response to it of 16 November 2021.
Background
4.
I have been asked to set out how I first became instructed by POL in relation
to the issues being addressed by the Inquiry, including but not limited to
relevant dates, names of individuals who instructed me and the nature of any
initial instructions. Before I do that, it is important to explain that from between
2013 and 2021, different firms of solicitors acting for POL instructed me as an
independent member of the Bar to advise on a number of discrete topics on
which my advice was sought on areas of law and practice within my field of
practice and expertise.
I was first instructed on behalf of POL in July 2013 by Gavin Matthews, then
a partner of the Southampton office of Bond Dickinson (“BD”), later Womble
Bond Dickinson (“WBD"”). I later received instructions from Herbert Smith
Freehills (“HSF”) to advise on various discrete areas.
Between 2020 and 2021, I was instructed by Peters & Peters (“P&P”) to
Page 2 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
represent POL’s interests before the Court of Appeal Criminal Division
(“CACD”) as leading counsel in a series of references brought by the Criminal
Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”) in respect of 42 subpostmasters.
I do not specially recall the nature of the approach to my clerks or of any initial
instructions at that early stage. However, by reference to point 2 in paragraph
4 of the Altman General Review document [POL00006803_0003], on 23
September 2013, I received from Gavin Matthews the final Terms of
Reference for [POL00006803_0004] by email. I believe these had been
drafted by BD. I reviewed and agreed them by return email the following day,
having, on 2 August 2013, refined an earlier draft in writing. The reference in
[POL00006803_0004] is, I believe, a reference to my observations document
- Terms of Reference for the Appointment of Brian Altman QC
[POL00006804]. I have taken the final Terms of Reference for the
Appointment of Brian Altman QC for this workstream to be [POL00040044],
albeit these Terms of Reference are undated. I set out below the nature of
the Terms of Reference and my instructions.
I inserted those Terms of Reference into the body of the Altman General
Review [POL00006803_0001-0003] and they formed my instructions for that
first workstream.
The second but allied workstream at that time resulted in the Altman Review
of the Prosecution Role [POL00006802] dated 19 December 2013. I note the
Terms of Reference in the index of documents to this Request
[POL00040036], which are in draft. The final Terms of Reference which
formed my instructions for this workstream were inserted into the body of the
Altman Review of the Prosecution Role [POL00006802_0001 -0002].
Page 3 of 53
10.
11.
Altman
wi
I am asked to what extent, if any, I was instructed, asked or encouraged to
provide general advice to POL in respect of Horizon issues (i.e., outside of
specific instruction for advice to be produced within a particular period on
identified issues). My attention has been invited, by way of example, to
[POL00065929] which is an email in which I provided my views on the content
of a Panorama Programme.
The Request dates the programme as in 2016. The programme was, I believe,
broadcast on 17 August 2015. My email to Andrew Parsons (then a managing
associate of the Southampton office of BD), which is dated 28 August 2015,
[POL00065929], was sent in a thread of emails bearing the subject line “Post
Office Balancing Transactions”. The email indicates I had been alerted to and
had viewed the programme, and volunteered views on it in the email in which,
in the first line, I responded to Andrew Parsons’ request in his email to me of
27 August 2015. I now have no recollection of how or why I was alerted to
the programme. To the best of my knowledge, I was never asked or
encouraged to provide general advice to POL in respect of Horizon issues
outside of specific instruction for advice, and I cannot now recall any other
specific examples of my having done so.
Interim __Review__[POL00006801]_and__Altman__General__Review
POL00006803
12.
I have already outlined how the instruction for this workstream came about.
My substantive instructions for the Altman Interim Review
[POL00006801_0001] were “to provide an interim review of Cartwright King’s
current process”. My substantive instructions for the Altman General Review
[POL00006803_0001-0002] were, in summary: (1) by 5 August 2013, to
Page 4 of 53
WITN10350100
ITN10350100
13.
14.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
prepare an interim review of Cartwright King’s (“CK”) current review process
(this was the interim review); (2) to review, and advise, POL, in writing, on or
by a date to be agreed but then intended to be no later than 15 October 2013,
on (a) its strategy and process for reviewing past and current criminal
prosecutions in light of Second Sight's Interim Report of 8 July 2013 and/or
on the role of Gareth Jenkins and his impact on any possible appeals; (b) its
response to the CCRC, and any subsequent action required by it in dealing
with, or responding to, any actual or potential appeals and/or in reaching the
appropriate resolution of any CCRC investigation, and to advise POL about
any further steps that may be required as regards any actual or potential
appeals against conviction; and (3) the identification of any flaws in the
process of, or from the evidence arising from, the review of a statistically
significant number of past prosecutions in which Horizon had been an issue
in the proceedings.
My instructions as outlined in the Terms of Reference were also to meet, or
personally report to, the Post Office Audit Committee or the Board, at the first
available opportunity, to (1) explain the background to the criminal appeal
process including appeals, and how I intended to fulfil my remit; and (2) on
the efficacy of the process set out above; and (3) on or by a date to be agreed ,
but then intended to be no later than 15 October 2013, to report on the efficacy
of past prosecutions including the preparation and conduct of past
prosecutions set out above.
I had delivered the Altman Interim Review [POL00006801] by or on 2 August
2013 and I had delivered the Altman General Review [POL00006803] on or
by the date intended by the final Terms of Reference (15 October 2013) which
are set out in [POL00006803_0001 -0003]. The first draft of those Terms of
Page 5 of 53
15.
16.
17.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
Reference, which I take to be the Draft Terms of Reference for the
Appointment of Brian Altman QC [POL00021982], has been supplied to me
in the index of documents to this Request. Those Draft Terms of Reference
are dated 9 August 2013 in the index to the Request, albeit the document itself
is undated. [POL00021982] gives the date by which I was to prepare the
Interim Review as 5 August 2013, and it gave an unspecified date in October
2013 as the date by which I was to review and advise POL in writing on the
matters thereafter set out.
lam asked to explain any delays between instruction and finalisation of the
Terms of Reference. I set out my observations on the Terms of Reference as
early as 2 August 2013 (see my observations document on the Terms of
Reference for the Appointment of Brian Altman QC [POL00006804)). In
footnote 4 to [POL00006804_0003], I queried the precise focus of my
instruction.
I have been provided with an email dated 9 August 2013 from Gavin Matthews
to Susan Crichton, Rodric Williams, Hugh Flemington and others
[POL00021980], to which I was not joined, and which I do not believe I have
seen previously. The email shows that Gavin Matthews and Simon
Richardson (a former partner of BD, I believe) advised POL that I should not
report on the safety of past convictions, because it would, in their view, delay
my report and potentially blur the boundary between my and CK’s respective
roles. It appears from [POL00006803_ 0004] that I received the final Terms
of Reference on 23 September 2013 from Gavin Matthews.
Thus, albeit there was some delay between instruction and finalisation of the
Terms of Reference, the work I was commissioned to do was delivered by the
due date.
Page 6 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
18. lam asked to detail meetings I had with POL as part of my investigations and
who I met.
(1)
(2)
(3)
There was a meeting on 9 September 2013, at my Chambers, which
from POL included Susan Crichton, who I believe was the General
Counsel at that time, Rodric Williams and Jamail Singh, who were
POL lawyers, as well as lawyers from CK and BD. The Note of
Conference with Brian Altman QC [POL00006769] has assisted me in
recalling the meeting. This meeting is also referred to at
[POL00006803_0003, _0035 and _0052]. Those references also
detail some of what we discussed.
I undertook Horizon training between 10am and 2pm on 19 September
2013 at Guildford Counter Training Office. There I met Chris Gilding
(Network Support team Leader) who trained me and Andy Holt
(Business Relationship Manager). The training is referred to at
[POL00006803_0004]. I would not otherwise have had any
recollection of who I met there. I believe, but could be wrong about it,
that Gavin Matthews was in attendance.
My work record (i.e., time sheet) [WITN10350105_0005] shows that
there was a telephone conference on 4 October 2013 with Gavin
Matthews, CK and POL lasting 30 minutes. This meeting is also
referred to at [POL00006803_0027 and _0042]. These references
show that I spoke to Rodric Williams and Jarnail Singh, together with
Simon Clarke of CK and Gavin Matthews, to discuss issues
surrounding the start date for CK’s review and the extent to which CK
should be involved in exercising a supervisory function over the
criminal cases going to mediation (as to which, see paragraph 26(6)
Page 7 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
below).
(4) At [POL00006803_0004], I wrote “at the time of writing I have not
identified (or had identified to me) any other persons to meet and
interview as part of a fact-finding exercise as relevant to the process
of the investigation and commencement of prosecutions.”
19. I am asked what, if any, discussions I had with Gareth Jenkins during this
period, and, if no discussions took place, whether this was something I
considered. I am asked to set out any discussions I had or advice I gave in
this regard.
20. In my observations document on the Terms of Reference for the Appointment
of Brian Altman QC [POL00006804_ 0003], I see I wrote:
“Paragraph 2 of the ‘Process’ section of the overarching Terms of
Reference (and in paragraph 2 of the ‘Process’ section of the
abbreviated Terms of Reference for the shorter report, albeit
bracketed) includes the possibility of my meeting Dr Jenkins. I note
this is queried.
Not meeting and hearing him, where there may be questions
potentially impacting on non-disclosure by him, and his role as an
expert, risks exposing the final report to criticism. However, this is not
a judicial or public inquiry with the formal receipt of evidence. This is
something I shall need to think about carefully; at this very early stage
I am not unnaturally undecided. For now it may be better for the
Terms of Reference to remain silent about him.”
21. It is clear from this that early on in my instruction I did consider whether to
meet Gareth Jenkins. I do not have a copy of the document I am referring to
here which must be an early iteration of the draft Terms of Reference, and I
Page 8 of 53
22.
23.
24.
25.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
do not know now what was “queried”, how it was queried or by whom. In the
event, I did not meet Gareth Jenkins and I cannot find any record that I had
further discussions about it or any record of my reasoning for not doing so.
lam also asked what, if any, discussions I had with any other individuals from
Fujitsu during this period, and, if no discussions took place, whether this was
something I considered. I had no discussions with anyone from Fujitsu and I
do not recall now if I considered it. However, given the nature and scope of
my instructions and role, I doubt I would have considered meeting anyone
from Fujitsu.
I am further asked to set out any information I received (whether formally or
informally, at this time or earlier) from BD (or WBD as they became) in respect
of any previous cases that they had been involved in where issues of bugs,
errors or defects in Horizon had been raised. I do not recall receiving any such
information at this time or earlier.
I am requested to set out the names of all lawyers at BD/WBD with whom I
discussed issues of the reliability of Gareth Jenkins (during this period or at
any other time) and to set out my recollections of those discussions. I have no
recollection of discussions with anyone from BD/WBD about Gareth Jenkins
in this period or at any other time.
lam asked about the extent to which I was aware of: (1) bugs, errors or defects
in Legacy Horizon; (2) the Helen Rose Report; (3) the Second Sight Interim
Report; (4) the August Clarke advice; and (5) the Detica report, and insofar as
I was not aware of them, to set out if (and if so, when) I later became aware of
them. I deal with each in turn:
(1) I was aware of the Callendar Square/Falkirk bug as to which I had
been given to understand a software fix had been distributed into the
Page 9 of 53
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
system by March 2006 (see [POL00006803_0042]). Certain other
concerns and problems were suggested in Harry Bowyer’s Response
to the Interim Review of Cartwright King’s Current Process by Brian
Altman QC [POL00066807_0002] but, as I understood it, these were
in Horizon Online, as they arose in the summer of 2013. Apart from
this, I do not believe in this period of time I was aware of the existence
of any other bugs, errors or defects in Legacy Horizon. I became
aware of them much later, I believe, following the 2019 Horizon Issues
Trial (see Note on the Horizon Issues Judgment at
[POL00026461_0001 -0003)).
I was aware of the Draft Report by Helen Rose on Horizon Data for
Lepton SPSO 191320 [POL00030214]. Reference to it may be found
at [POL00006801_0004-0005 and _0010 and POL00006803_0005,
0008, 0020, 0031, 0046, 0049 and _0054].
I was aware of Second Sight’s Interim Report into the Alleged
Problems with the Horizon System [POL00029650]. Reference to it
may be found at [POL00006801_0003-0005, 0006 and _0010 and
POL00006803_0001, _0005, _0008, _0009, _0015-0018, _0021,
_0023-0024, 0027 and _0031].
I was aware of the August Clarke Advice on Disclosure and the Duty
to Record and Retain Material. Reference to it may be found at
[POL00006803_0036-0037].
I was not aware of the Draft Report on Fraud and Non -conformance
in the Post Office; Challenges and Recommendations by Detica dated
1 October 2013 [POL00029677]. I received what I believe to be the
final version of the report dated 28 October 2013 at some time in
Page 10 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
March 2020 in the course of my work on the criminal appeals.
26. I am asked to detail any reflections I have on the advice that I gave including
(but not limited to) in respect of each of the following: (1) the start date for
cases reviewed as part of the CK Sift Review; (2) any other limitations in scope
of the CK Review; (3) the independence of the CK Sift Review; (4) the test
that had been applied by Cartwright King reviewers in respect of the safety of
the convictions; (5) my reliance on the content of Mr Jenkins’ witness
statements to inform my review; (6) the “concern that offenders might use the
mediation scheme to gain information as a platform from which to launch a
fresh or new appeal”; and (7) observations regarding Cartwright King being
given complete visibility of civil litigation and its potential impact on decisions
made in criminal cases. While I address each of those questions below, it is
important for me to observe that the advice that I gave in each instance was
dependent on the information that was available to me to at the time. I now
deal with each question in turn:
(1) Second Sight had arrived at the preliminary conclusion in their Interim
Report that they had so far found no evidence of system wide
(systemic) problems with Horizon, and they were aware of two
incidents where “defects” or “bugs” in Horizon Online had affected
branches [POL00029650__0005-0006 and _0008]. At
[POL00006803_0024-0027] I set out at some length the basis upon
which I arrived at the view (which I still hold) that 1 January 2010 was
a “logical and practicable” start date for the review. The rationale was
that this date was the earliest date of the Horizon Online rollout and
that, prior to each branch rollout, a cash audit was performed so that
each branch balanced. However, I also made clear that if POL was
Page 11 of 53
(2)
(3)
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
approached by individuals convicted before the start date, it would
need to make ad hoc case-specific decisions about the need for
disclosure and that the case of Mrs Misra was one case I had in mind
where similar issues had been raised (see [POL00006803_0025)).
As for my reflections on the existence of any other limitations in the
scope of the CK review, I set out at [POL00006803_0023-0033] my
understanding of the disclosure process CK had embarked on and the
system they were employing. I set out my conclusions about the scope
of the CK review in the Executive Summary at [POL00006803_0005].
l identified certain issues regarding the independence of the review at
[POL00006803_0032-0033] and concluded that lawyers should not
sift or review their own cases. It was and remains my view that
advising a review that was wholly independent of CK was
unnecessary. I had raised concerns about the independence of the
CK review in my Interim Review at [POL00006801_0002 and _0006-
0007]. I returned to this theme in the General Review
[POL00006803_0005 and _0032-0033]. At [POL00006803_0033], I
wrote “I have considered this issue with some care and, having met
with representatives of CK, and having considered the many Advices
and other material I have seen emanating from CK representatives, I
have seen no evidence other than a professional and independent
approach to this review. Consequently, on the material available to
me, I would reject any suggestion that CK's solicitors and counsel
cannot act, or have not acted, with an independent and professional
approach to the Horizon issues, which have arisen, and to their
review.”
Page 12 of 53
(4)
(5)
(6)
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
The test that had been applied by CK reviewers in respect of the safety
of the convictions was that which I identified at [POL00006803_0041].
The test was there was a duty to disclose where material came to light
after the conclusion of the proceedings “which might cast doubt on the
safety of the conviction”. I advised that the letter that was sent out
should reflect that test (see [POL00006803_0043-0044]). My advice
included at [POL00006803_0029] that CK “should be alive to
changing circumstances ... and must not therefore adopt an over -rigid
approach; each case must be approached on a case-by-case basis.”
I re-emphasised this at [POL00006803_0054].
I was reviewing CK’s disclosure process as a result of the revelations
made to CK by Mr Jenkins, as set out in Simon Clarke’s Legal Advice
on the Use of Expert Evidence [POL00006798_0011]._ Why Mr
Jenkins had failed to reveal in his witness statements or evidence the
bugs or defects he knew about was not a matter for my review.
However, it was the impact of those failures on his future role as an
expert and more importantly the effect of those failures of disclosure
on past convictions and current prosecutions that were the focus of
attention (see [POL00006803_0001-0003, _0018-0019, _0044-
0049)).
I am asked about the “concern that offenders might use the mediation
scheme to gain information as a platform from which to launch a fresh
or new appeal” (see [POL00006803_0042]). This was something CK
had raised during the meeting of 9 September 2013 [POL00006769]
At [POL00006769_0003], the note reads, “BA advised considerable
caution in relation to mediation cases involving previously convicted
Page 13 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
individuals (Seema Misra has already indicated an intention to be
within the scheme). The concern is that lawyers acting for those
individuals may be using the scheme to obtain information which they
would not normally be entitled to in order to pursue an appeal.”
According to the note, my view was that CK should review the
information being given to individuals by Second Sight so CK were not
“blindsided” by evidence of which they were unaware, and that the
information being sent out to individuals should be audited by CK. This
had been the main topic of conversation during the 4 October 2013
telephone conference, as to which, in the General Review (at
[POL00006803_0042)) I reported, “There is understandable concern
that offenders might use the mediation scheme to gain information as
a platform from which to launch a fresh or new appeal, and so CK wish
to exercise a measure of control over the dissemination of information
and material during the process.” However, I went on to advise at
[POL00006803_0042-0043] that “CK must consider the approach it
is to take with applicants. Mediation is not a formalised court process
and the CPIA [Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996] rules
of disclosure do not apply. However, the mediation process in a
particular case could give rise to the view that, mindful of its common
law duties, case-specific disclosure ought to be made, and POL and
CK must keep an open mind to this. The mediation process might
even give rise to consideration of making further general disclosure
within the current review, depending on the nature of the new
information.” Thus, the advice was not about withholding material but
about CK supervision of the process and the “possible uncontrolled
Page 14 of 53
(7)
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
dissemination of information and material” (see
[POL00006803_0043]). Indeed, in the Executive Summary, I
concluded, “Cartwright King should exercise supervisory control over
the dissemination of information and material during the mediation
process, and should remain alive to the possibility of having to make
case-specific disclosure in the course of that process, or even making
additional general disclosure in the course of its current review
depending on the nature of any new information.”
The observations I made regarding CK being given complete visibility
of civil litigation and its potential impact on decisions made in criminal
cases [POL00006803_0007 and _0055] was, I felt, and continue to
feel, an obvious one. My view was that without visibility of any Horizon-
related civil litigation, CK might be denied information that bore on
their review of criminal cases. By this, I meant the disclosure decisions
they were making.
27. Despite the Terms of Reference, I was not invited to meet, or personally report
28.
to, the POL Board or the Audit Committee as regards my review or my
findings.
lam asked the extent to which I consider my review was limited to conducting
“a review of the process.” My attention is invited to paragraph 14.2 of the
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent in relation to the Application for
Access to Papers in the Proceedings [POL00158692]. The date of the
document is 30 November 2020. This was POL’s response to an application
made by Nick Wallis to the CACD for access, in particular, to the “Clarke
Advice” (see [POL00006798}]), which was the focus of the application and the
submission document (see [POL00158692_0002]). The submission at
Page 15 of 53
29.
30.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
paragraph 14.2 was that I had been instructed “among other things, to conduct
a review of the process (although not the individual decisions in reviewed
cases).” That formulation does not suggest there was any limitation to my
review.
I am asked to what extent I considered my review to be an independent
investigation and to what extent, if any, did I understand those who received
the review to have considered it to be an independent investigation. The
Terms of Reference show that my instructions on behalf of POL were, in
essence, to review Gareth Jenkins’ role as an expert witness in future POL
prosecutions, given the disclosure failures which had been revealed by him to
Second Sight, and, more importantly, to advise on the impact of those
disclosure failures on past convictions and current prosecutions and review
the disclosure process CK had then embarked upon. I did not consider it to
be an independent investigation as such, and the words “independent
investigation” do not appear in my Terms of Reference for the review. Indeed,
as was stated in the Terms of Reference at [POL00006803_0001], while there
was a fact-finding element to my work, I was instructed to “review, and advise
POL in writing ...” on those matters set out in the Terms of Reference. I thus
regarded my work as advisory in nature and not in the nature of an
independent investigation. The views I arrived at were, however, independent
of my professional and lay clients. I have no insight into the extent to which
those who received the review considered it to be an independent
investigation.
lam asked about the extent to which drafts of my reports were amended after
discussion with POL or others before being finalised and to describe this
process and the nature of the comments that were received in respect of
Page 16 of 53
31.
32.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
drafts. The review document [POL00006803] went through various drafts,
which is the normal course of events in any advisory or review work as
thoughts and findings emerge. It is possible that previous drafts of
[POL00006803] were sent to Gavin Matthews for comment. I would not have
discussed or sent any drafts to POL. I am unable to find any record of
comments Mr Matthews might have provided me, and I cannot at this distance
in time recall any. However, my work record for 14 October 2013
[WITN10350106_0002] indicates that I made final revisions to my General
Review “following telephone con with GM (16:30 for 26 minutes)”.
I invite the Inquiry’s attention to the Executive Summary
[POL00006803_0005-0007] which summarises my conclusions in the
General Review. Based on the information I had at that time, in particular, as
to how CK were conducting their review, and exercising my professional
judgement, I was of the opinion that the review was “fundamentally sound”
and I had not detected any “systemic of fundamental flaws” in the process of
the review, or in the evidence arising from it, but I added that, because the
review was a continuing process, and POL had a continuing duty of
disclosure, in current and, in practice, past conviction cases falling within the
review, POL and CK “must be prepared to keep under review, and reconsider,
past case reviews and disclosure decisions” At [POL00006803_0053-0054)),
I explained this further by saying CK’s review was organised and efficient, it
was being considered at the right level in CK, and it was addressing the right
tests. I emphasised the need to keep an open mind to reconsidering past
disclosure decisions.
I am asked to what extent, if any, did POL implement my recommendations
(insofar as I am aware). I believe I had no insight into this. I am asked if I saw
Page 17 of 53
33.
34.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
responses to my recommendations by CK. My attention is drawn to
Observations and Analysis of the Cartwright King Prosecution Review
Process dated 5 December 2013 [POL00040194]. I am unable to say now if I
had seen this document previously and I have no recollection now of seeing
any other documents of that nature.
I did not attend any Wednesday Hub Meetings and so I cannot provide any
view about their effectiveness and approach.
I am asked whether I consider that I was provided with sufficient information
to conduct my review and to detail the reasons for my answer. The information
I had at that time regarding bugs, errors or defects in Horizon Online was the
Helen Rose Report [POL00030214], the Second Sight Interim Report
[POL00029650], the information about the Callendar Square/Falkirk bug in
Legacy Horizon, which I understood had been fixed by March 2006, as well
as some other possible concerns or issues identified in Harry Bowyers’
Response to my Interim Review (see [POL00066807]). Second Sight’s report
[POL00029650] was interim, and it had expressed its conclusions as
“preliminary”, and it made clear there was “much work still to be done”, as I
repeated in the General Review at [POL00006803_0017-0018]. I also
advised that “the conclusions I arrive at in this document are necessarily
subject to further consideration of any additional or different conclusions SS
might reach in the future.” (1 had made much the same point in my
observations document on the Terms of Reference for the Appointment of
Brian Altman QC at [POL00006804_0004].) In its interim report, Second Sight
said they had so far found no evidence of system wide (systemic) problems
with the Horizon software. That was the basis on which my review necessarily
proceeded. I was not in any position to detect, far less foresee, the
Page 18 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
catastrophic problems with Horizon that were later laid bare in the Horizon
Issues Trial.
Altman Review of the Prosecution Role [POL00006802]
35.
36.
37.
I have outlined above how the instruction for this particular workstream came
about and who instructed me. The nature of my instruction was, in essence,
to review, and, if appropriate, to recommend changes to the existing
investigations and conduct of future POL prosecutions, including, if
appropriate, POL’s investigative and prosecutorial role being undertaken by
another authority. The Terms of Reference for the Appointment of Brian
Altman QC [POL00040036], which appear to be a draft, are the genesis of
this workstream. The Terms of Reference were, it seems, revised, as is
evident by the final Terms of Reference I inserted into [POL00006802] at
[POL00006802_ 0001-0002].
My observations document on the Terms of Reference for the Appointment of
Brian Altman QC [POL00006804_0002] appears to show that, originally, this
had been envisaged to be part of one workstream. I cannot now remember
how or why this work was separated into two parts.
My work record [WITN10350106_0004] shows that, on 17 October 2013,
there was a telephone conference lasting 30 minutes with Rob King and Andy
Hayward both of POL, together with Gavin Matthews, in order to discuss
issues regarding POL’s investigation structure and function (see
[POL00006802_0002 and _0028]). This was followed by a telephone
conference alone with Gavin Matthews of 10 minutes. The work record also
shows that there was a meeting in my chambers on 22 October 2013 with
Page 19 of 53
38.
39.
40.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
Chris Aujard of POL and Gavin Matthews of one hour and 45 minutes’
duration. I have no note of what we discussed and cannot now recall the
content of the meeting. The work record (at [WITN10350106_0004-0005])
shows too that there was a 20 minute telephone conference call with Rodric
Williams on 12 November 2013, and a telephone conference with Gavin
Matthews on 18 November 2013 lasting 15 minutes, followed by a telephone
conference with Rodric Williams, Jarnail Singh, Gavin Matthews and Andrew
Parsons, which lasted one hour and 15 minutes. I have no notes or
independent recollection of these meetings.
As I wrote at [POL00006802_0003], “Further to these conferences, I have not
identified (or had identified to me by POL) anyone else I should meet or speak
to as relevant to the issues I am asked to review. I have however received
written answers to a variety of questions I have asked or issues I have raised
by email in the course of my review.”
I am asked why this advice contains a curriculum vitae at the end of my
Review (see [POL00006802_0040)). It is not typical of advisory work I did at
the time. At this distance in time, I cannot recall why I included a short CV, or
why, by comparison, I did not do so for my General Review [POL00006803].
I am asked when carrying out this review the extent to which I was aware of
the information/reports identified in paragraph 25 above (and if and insofar as
my answer is that I was not yet aware of such information, whether I had
become aware of them by this time). My answer remains the same for items
(1)-(4). Insofar as item (5) is concerned, I must also make clear that I had also
not received the final Detica report. I make no reference to the draft Detica
report dated 1 October 2013 [POL00029677] or the final Detica report dated
28 October 2013 in my Review [POL00006802].
Page 20 of 53
41.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
lam asked to detail any reflections I have on the advice I gave including (but
not limited to) in respect of each of the following: (1) POL’s conduct in carrying
out its investigations and prosecution function; (2) the focus on Horizon
Online; and (3) the appropriateness of the steps that POL had taken to address
potentially affected cases. I deal with each in turn:
(1)
(2)
I note that at [POL00006802_0039], I wrote “It may be thought that
POL’s prosecution role is anachronistic, and highly problematic in light
of recent events.” However, the information I had and relied upon in
December 2013 in order to arrive at my views about POL’s own
conduct of its investigations and prosecution function led me to
understand and write at [POL00006802_0039], “the recent events
have to be seen in their proper context. The serial non-disclosure of
relevant material occurred in circumstances in which POL asserts that
it and its advisers were wholly unaware that there might be disclosable
material or information, and so, whatever the reason, were not placed
in a position whereby they knew of its existence and could deal with it
appropriately”, “POL was, inevitably, in a position where it was wholly
dependent on FSL [Fujitsu] and/or the expert to reveal material so that
POL could perform its prosecution duties, which in the event it was
unable to do” and that “POL, with its unique commercial arrangement
with its IT supplier, also became somewhat hostage to it.” Later events
proved my then information and understanding to be wholly incorrect.
The information I had led me also to the view that POL’s investigations
and prosecution function was “well-organised, structured and efficient”
(see [POL00006802_0040)).
I have set out at paragraph 26(1) above the rationale underlying the
Page 21 of 53
42.
43.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
focus on Horizon Online. Insofar as this review is concerned, it was
about POL’s prosecution function and so it was forward-looking. It
was, therefore, inevitable that the focus was on Horizon Online.
(3) lam asked also to reflect on the appropriateness of the steps that POL
had taken to address potentially affected cases. These steps (as I
understand the question) were the subject of [POL00006803].
I am asked to what extent I considered my review to be an independent
investigation and to what extent, if any, did I understand those who received
the review to have considered it to be an independent investigation. I did not
consider it to be an independent investigation as such and the words
“independent investigation” do not appear in my Terms of Reference for the
review work (see [POL00006802_0001 -0002]). Again, I regarded my work as
advisory and not in the nature of an independent investigation. The views I
arrived at were, however, independent of my professional and lay clients. I
have no insight into the extent to which those who received the review
considered it to be an independent investigation.
lam again asked about the extent to which drafts of my report were amended
after discussion with POL or others before being finalised and to describe this
process and the nature of the comments that were received in respect of
drafts. The review document [POL00006802] went through various drafts,
which, as I mention at paragraph 30 above, is not unusual as thoughts and
findings emerge. It is possible that previous drafts of [POL00006802] were
sent to Gavin Matthews for comment. I would not have discussed or sent any
drafts to POL. I am unable to find any record of any comments Mr Matthews
might have provided me, and I cannot at this distance in time recall any.
However, my work record for 20 October 2013 [WITN10350106_0003] shows
Page 22 of 53
44,
45.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
I submitted a draft of this review document to BD, and, on 21 October 2013, I
noted, “Further revising review document [2] & submitting it to BD, following
telecom (sic) with GM (14:15 for 17 mins)”. The work record for 25 October
2013 [WITN10350106_0003] notes “Further consideration & revision of
review document in light of additional comments” and that for 19 December
2013 [WITN10350106_0004] notes “Final edit as per requests and
submission’.
Despite the Terms of Reference, I was not invited to meet, or personally report
to, the POL Board or the Audit Committee to give them my recommendations,
either by 31 October 2013 (see [POL00006802_0001)), or at any time after
the delivery of the written review.
I am asked to what extent, if any, POL implemented any recommendations I
made (insofar as I am aware). In answering this question my attention has
been drawn to Bond Dickinson — Personal Attendance Note re: POL’s Policy
including Enforcement Policy to Prosecute SPMs [POL00125442]. In
[POL00006802_0005-0007] I made a series of recommendations as regards
POL investigation and prosecution policies and as regards a protocol or
memorandum of understanding with Fujitsu covering POL’s duties and
obligations of disclosure and seeking their understanding and agreeme nt to
revealing “any and all material or information that might undermine the
integrity of the system, and to the requirement for the disclosure of such
material or information in the course of criminal proceedings, as may be
required.” As [POL00125442] shows, in 2014 I was asked to assist with POL’s
prosecution policy. Indeed, in [POL00006802_0018-0029] I had commented
upon a series of different POL enforcement and prosecution policy documents
that had been sent to me, and remarked at [POL00006802_0028], that “The
Page 23 of 53
46.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
current state of affairs is unsatisfactory. POL separated from RMG in April
2012, yet, despite the recently CK draft policy document Post Office
Prosecution Policy — England and Wales (document (xii)), and the Conduct of
Criminal Investigation Policy document (document (xiii)), emanating from
POL’s Security Department, the position in late 2013 is that there exist several
enforcement and prosecution policy documents, whose precise status, origin
and currency are uncertain, and there is none still that is official POL policy.”
Beyond this, I am unaware of the enforcement and prosecution policy
documents, if any, that POL finally settled upon. Equally, I do not believe I
was told anything more about the protocol or memorandum of understanding
with Fujitsu, referred to above.
Finally, I am asked whether I consider I was provided with sufficient
information to conduct my review and to detail the reasons for my answer. In
terms of POL’s investigation and prosecution function, I think I did have
adequate information in general terms to make recommendations about
POL’s future role. But it is, I think, clear in light of later events, that the
information I had been given that POL was “wholly unaware” that there might
be disclosable material or information, and that POL was “wholly dependent
on FSL [Fujitsu] and/or the expert to reveal material so that POL could perform
its prosecution duties” was incorrect.
Altman Advice on Board Papers [POL00105068'
47.
I have no recollection of the background to this workstream, but my Advice
Report on Papers for Post Office Ltd Board [POL00105068_0001] reveals
that, at the end of January 2014, I was asked to consider two papers and
Page 24 of 53
48.
49.
50.
51.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
appendices that were sent to me, titled Project Sparrow - Paper on Stacked
Cases and Project Sparrow - Paper on Prosecutions Going Forward. As I say
there, “In essence I was asked to conduct a fatal flaw analysis of the proposals
and propositions contained in both papers”. I cannot recall now if the
instructions came through BD/WBD or POL itself. However, the telephone
conference set out below suggests Gavin Matthews was involved in my
instruction.
The information I was provided with for this advice is set out at
[POL00105068_0001]. The advice appears to have been self-contained.
Therefore, the information appears to have been sufficient for the purpose.
lam asked to detail who I met from POL to gather information for this advice.
My work record [WITN10350107_0001] shows that there was a telephone
conference with Gavin Matthews on 29 January 2014 lasting 15 minutes,
which related to advising the Board on so-called “stacking cases” and future
prosecutions. The work record [WITN10350107_0004] also shows that there
was a telephone conference with Rodric Williams and Gavin Matthews on 30
January 2014 lasting 45 minutes, which I have assumed was related to the
same topic, given its proximity in time. I have been unable to find any note of
either conference.
lam asked when drafting this advice the extent to which I was aware of the
information/reports identified in paragraphs 25 and 40 above (and if and insofar
as my answer is that I was not yet aware of such information, whether I had
become aware of them by this time). My answer remains the same for items
(1)(5).
lam asked for my reflections on this work. As I have said, the advice was a
self-contained piece of work. It sets out what I consider to be appropriate
Page 25 of 53
52.
53.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
advice on the material with which I was provided, such as my advice about
elderly and vulnerable alleged victims (see [POL00105068_0003-0004)); the
issue of delay and abuse of process (see [POL00105068_0004-0007]); and
financial thresholds and the two-stage test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors
(see [POL00105068_0010-0014)).
I was not invited to meet, or personally report to, the POL’s Board or the Audit
Committee or any other committee in respect of this advice.
I do not know if, or the extent to which, my recommendations were
implemented.
Altman Advice on Mediation [POL00006368]
54.
55.
It appears from the material that has been drawn to my attention, namely,
Email Chain from Rodric Williams to Claire Webb and Johnny Gribben re: FW.
Call with Brian Altman QC of 16 and 17 July 2014 [POL00061549] and Email
Chain between Gavin Matthews, Rodric Williams, Andrew Parsons and others
re: Advice from Bran Altman QC on Suggested Approach to Criminal Case
Mediation [POL00040254], as well as the Advice on Criminal Case Mediation
[POL00006368], that following conferences on 16 July 2014 and on 31 July
2014, I was asked to provide the advice by Gavin Matthews on behalf of POL.
The advice I was instructed to provide related to the approach POL should
adopt to criminal cases falling within the mediation scheme.
I am asked to detail who I met from POL to gather information for this advice.
My work record [WITN10350108_0003] shows that there was a telephone
conference with Gavin Matthews on 15 July 2014 lasting 30 minutes. The
work record shows also that there was a telephone conference with POL and
Gavin Matthews on 16 July 2014 lasting one hour and 15 minutes (referred to
Page 26 of 53
56.
57.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
in [POL00061549_0001]), and that there was a telephone conference with
Gavin Matthews on 30 July 2014 lasting 15 minutes. Finally, the work record
[WITN10350108_0004] shows that there was a telephone conference with
Gavin Matthews and Rodric Williams on 31 July 2014 lasting one hour (which
is referred to in [POL00040254_0001] and [POL00006368_0001]). I have
been unable to find that I made any note of those telephone conferences, but
I see that detail of the conference of 16 July 2014 is set out in an email of the
same date [POL00061549_0001], to which I was not joined. I note too that
detail of the telephone conference of 31 July 2014 is set out in an email of 7
August 2014 [POL00040254_0002], to which I was also not joined.
lam asked when drafting this advice the extent to which I was aware of the
information/reports identified in paragraphs 25, 40 and 50 above (and if and
insofar as my answer is that I was not yet aware of such information, whether
I had become aware of them by this time). My answer remains the same for
items (1)-(5). I am also asked whether by this time I had become aware of (6)
the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme Briefing Report - Part One
Second Sight Report dated 25 July 2014 [POL00075178]. I had not become
aware of this report by the time I delivered this advice, and it is not referred to
in the advice [POL00006368].
lam asked for my reflections on this work on the advice I gave including (but
not limited to) the concems that I had in respect of allowing convicted
subpostmasters into the mediation scheme, as well the extent to which, if any,
I was concerned about the use of the mediation scheme to obtain disclosure
relevant to criminal appeals. It is clear from the advice at
[POL00006368_0005] that I had been provided with, and read, CK’s advices
of 9 and 15 July 2014 on the topic and I did not disagree with their advice in
Page 27 of 53
58.
59.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
which they continued to maintain “a wholesale objection to the admission of
all criminal cases to the scheme’.
As I said also, I had expressed that same view “some months previously” (see
[POL00006368_0005]), which I think must be a reference to the conference
on 9 September 2013 [POL00006769]. However, I noted also that I
“understood that time had moved on and a practical solution had to be found
to deal with those criminal cases that were now within the mediation scheme.”
Moreover, in my General Review of 15 October 2013 (at
[POL00006803_0052]), I outlined Sir Anthony Hooper's suggestion (made
“quite firmly”) that it might be more appropriate for cases that had been
through the courts to be referred to the CCRC rather than go through the
mediation scheme, as well as the views I had voiced during the 9 September
2013 conference (see [POL00006769_0003)).
My advice was based on the information I had received. Additionally, as I
wrote at [POL00006368_0002], “POL has dealt with criminal cases in line with
that process [POL’s unadopted Settlement Policy], so that if material is
identified that affects the safety of the conviction, the process is suspended,
the material is disclosed, and the applicant considers his position as regards
any appeal. If the process that POL has been adopting within the mediati on
scheme is limited in this way then I see no problem with it. The problem arises
with the notion that POL should consider its position on any future appeal.”
This had been “POL's standard approach” (see [POL00006368_0001)). I
added “The focus of our discussions on 31% July was around the practical
utility of such an approach. The view I expressed was that I could not see any
advantage to POL in adopting, far less being held to, a position on any criminal
appeal during the mediation scheme. In fact, adopting such a cour se would
Page 28 of 53
60.
61.
62.
63.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
be to court an unacceptable level of risk...”
I concluded at [POL00006368_0004] “It is for these reasons POL should only
ever consider its position once an applicant has considered the new material
and has in fact launched a criminal appeal. There is in my judgment an
unacceptable risk to POL in providing or being held to a position on criminal
appeal at the early stage of mediation. An indication by POL at such an early
stage based on limited information risks inviting an appeal. Also, at this stage
the applicant will almost certainly not have even considered whether the new
information gives rise to grounds of appeal let alone whether there are any
grounds that are reasonably arguable ... POL may find itself prematurely
supporting an appeal when upon mature reflection the written grounds of
appeal show it ought not to have done so or it may oppose an appeal when
events prove it was ill judged to have done so.”
As appears above at paragraph 26(6), my original 2013 advice had been about
the application of the mediation scheme to those convicted of criminal
offences. I note from what I said in my advice (at [POL00006368_0005})) that
those who had pleaded guilty or had been cautioned for an offence were
admitted to the scheme.
The focus of my advice in [POL00006368] was on POL’s practical approach
to what Sir Anthony Hooper had suggested in cases where those who had
admitted an offence had been admitted to the scheme.
The second issue on the mediation which was the subject of my advice in
2013 was, as I set out at paragraph 26(6) above, about CK having a
supervisory function regarding the criminal cases in the mediation and the
“possible uncontrolled dissemination of information and material” (see
[POL00006803_0043]). As appears from paragraphs 26(6) and 59 above, I
Page 29 of 53
64.
65.
66.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
was not concerned about the mediation scheme being used to obtain
disclosure relevant to criminal appeals.
To the direct question I am asked in the Request, whether there were any
issues relating to my representation of POL in matters relating to criminal
appeals and advising on mediation, my response is there was none. The CACD
was not examining events post-2013 or the scope of the mediation scheme or
whether POL’s standard approach to the mediation scheme was fairly applied
in those cases before the CACD. The issues before the CACD in 2021 were
about the safety of those 42 convictions, on grounds of appeal of abuse of
process based on failures of investigation and non-disclosure under the
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 at the time of prosecution.
I was not invited to meet, or personally report to, the POL’s Board or the Audit
Committee or any other committee in respect of this advice.
I do not know if, or the extent to which, my recommendations were
implemented.
Altman Advice on Theft and False Accounting [POL00006588]
67.
I was asked to advise POL on what had been termed the “equality” of the
offences of theft and false accounting in light of a letter POL had sent to
Second Sight on 24 February 2015. As I said in the advice (see
[POL00006588_0001]), I had been informed that Second Sight had begun to
advance arguments that POL was abusing its prosecutorial role by charging
subpostmasters with theft when there was no evidence of it in order only to
pressure them into pleading guilty to false accounting. The Email Chain from
Brian Altman to Andrew Parsons cc'ing Gavin Matthews re: Post Office —
False Accounting and Theft on 6 March 2015 [POL0012577] was the origin of
Page 30 of 53
68.
69.
70.
71.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
the Advice on Theft and False Accounting: Brian Altman QC dated 8 March
2015 [POL00006588]. The emails show the instructions emanated from
Andrew Parsons, and Gavin Matthews was copied in. Those instructions are
set out under the heading “Advice required” at [POL0012577_0003]. A formal
advice was not required, but, as my email of 8 March 2015 to BD shows
[POL0012577_0001], I felt it easier to put my advice into a separate
document. My instructions were also outlined at [POL00006588_0003]. The
sole focus of the advice I was being asked for was whether statements POL
had made in the letter were defensible (see [POL0012577_0003] and
[POL00006588_0003)).
I have no record of meeting anyone to gather information for the purposes of
this advice.
lam asked when drafting this advice the extent to which I was aware of the
information/reports identified in paragraphs 25, 40, 50 and 56 above (and if and
insofar as my answer is that I was not yet aware of such information, whether
I had become aware of them by this time). My answer remains the same for
items (1)-(6).
BD’s email to me of 6 March 2015 [POL0012577] set out the information I
required for this advice which was a self-contained piece of work. Therefore,
it seems to me the information appears to have been sufficient for the purpose.
I am asked for my reflections on this advice. The dispute was about whether
the offence of false accounting was a “lesser” offence to the offence of theft
or whether they were “equal”. Sir Anthony Hooper was of the view false
accounting was a lesser offence. CK disagreed. I was being asked to advise
POL about the letter sent by POL to Second Sight on 24 February 2015 and
to advise whether the statement the offences were “equal” was defensible. I
Page 31 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
made my views clear about that proposition at [POL00006588_0003-0004]
and referred to the examples provided by Sir Anthony Hooper in
POL0012577_0001] where in certain circumstances false accounting may be
more serious than theft. I developed the point at [POL00006588_0004-0006]
and my conclusions were set out at [POL00006588_0007-0008).
72. I was not invited to meet, or personally report to, the POL Board or the Audit
Committee as regards my advice. I do not know what use POL made of my
advice. I did not speak to Sir Anthony Hooper about the matter. There were
no substantive differences between what I understood to be his views and
mine. As I have stated above, the dispute had originated between CK’s advice
and Sir Anthony Hooper's views about it.
Altman Review of Criminal Prosecutions [POL00006394]
73. My instructions here were, essentially, to advise POL as to whether the safety
of a conviction for false accounting could be undermined in circumstances
where a person was charged with theft and false accounting, but had
pleaded guilty to the false accounting charge, following which, and/or in
return for which, the theft charge was dropped, and where there was
said to be no or no sufficient evidential basis to bring the theft charge. The
background to my involvement in this review [POL00006394] was the Review
on behalf of the Chairman of Post Office Ltd concerning steps taken in
response to various complaints made by subpostmasters dated 8 February
2016 undertaken by Jonathan Swift QC (now Mr Justice Swift) and
Christopher Knight (“the Swift Review”) [POL00006355]. My formal
instructions were from Rodric Williams and dated 18 February 2016 and were
set out in Instructions to Brian Altman QC from POL [POL00022765_0001-
Page 32 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
0003]. The Swift Review had made the following recommendations on the
issue of the sufficiency of evidence (at [POL00006355_0038)):
(1)
(2)
113.1: “Legal advice be sought from counsel as to whether the
decision to charge an SPMR [subpostmaster] with theft and false
accounting could undermine the safety of any conviction for false
accounting where (a) the conviction was on the basis of a guilty
plea, following which and/or in return for which the theft charge
was dropped, and (b) there had not been a sufficient evidential
basis to bring the theft charge.”
113.2: “If such a conviction could be undermined in those
circumstances, that counsel review the prosecution file in such
cases to establish whether, applying the facts and law applicable
at the relevant time, there was a sufficient evidential basis to
conclude that a conviction for theft was a realistic prospect such
that the charge was properly brought.”
74. My instructions were to advise POL as to whether the safety of a conviction
75.
for false accounting could be undermined in the circumstances set out at
paragraph 113.1, and, I was informed once POL had that advice, it could
consider the steps (if any) it should take with respect to the prosecution
file review referred to in paragraph 11 3.2 (see [POL00022765_0003)).
I have read through Email from Rodric Williams to Brian Altman QC: re:
instructions for Brian Altman QC [POL00025755]. This is an email chain
between Rodric Williams and me (with Gavin Matthews copied in) between
29 February 2016 (the date I received the papers in Chambers) and 4 April
2016.
76. Having read the instructions and file contents, and, as asked of me in my
Page 33 of 53
77.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
instructions (see [POL00022765_0004-0005)), I then contacted Mr Williams
by email on 20 March 2016 (see [POL00025755_0002]). As regards the first
issue I had been asked to advise upon (the theft/false accounting issue) I
offered the view that “The recommendation, as formulated, suggests to me
that the only solution would be to proceed to a review of all such affected
cases. This is because the recommendation is predicated on the basis that
“(b) there had not been a sufficient evidential basis to bring the theft charge’.
This second limb to the recommendation is such that I could not advise other
than to move to a review. This is because it could never have been
appropriate, adopting the Code for Crown Prosecutors, to add a theft charge
with no evidence of theft only to secure a plea to false accounting. The
suggestion has been that, through CK, POL indicted theft charges without any
evidential basis solely to encourage and secure pleas of guilty to “lesser” false
accounting charges. The underlying allegation is that POL has manipulated
its position as prosecutor as to amount to an abuse of the process. The safety
of a conviction based even on a plea of guilty might be undermined by a
serious abuse of the process. There is, for example, authority that material
non-disclosure might lead to the finding of an abuse even where the defendant
had pleaded guilty. This is because the defendant has, by the non-disclosure,
been deprived of the opportunity to deploy an argument to stay the indictment.
So too here, if there was undisclosed evidence of a deliberate ‘practice’ to do
as is alleged (which is what is being said) then that could lead to finding of
abuse. Any review would have to be by me alone (rather than one conducted
by CK and supervised by me as suggested by Swift (para 109)) because it is
CK's decision-making which is under the spotlight.”
I did not advise on the second area of concern identified by the Swift Review
Page 34 of 53
78.
79.
80.
81.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
[POL00006355], the reasons for which are outlined in the email chain at
[POL00025755_0001-0002] and explained in my _ advice at
[POL00006394_0004-0005].
My work record [WITN10350109_0004] shows that there was a telephone
conference with Rodric Williams on 18 February 2016 lasting 20 minutes. This
coincides with the date of my formal instructions, although not the receipt of
the papers, which was on 29 February 2016. The work record shows that there
was another call with him several weeks later on 5 April 2016 which lasted 45
minutes. This call is referred to in the review at [POL00006394_0005]. The
work record shows also that there was a telephone conference with Andrew
Parsons on 31 May 2016, but I cannot tell from the record (which simply
characterises the conference as “re way forward”) whether it was related to
this workstream. I have no note or independent recollection of these meetings.
lam asked when drafting this advice the extent to which I was aware of the
information/reports identified in paragraphs 25, 40, 50, 56 and 69 above (and if
and insofar as my answer is that I was not yet aware of such information,
whether I had become aware of them by this time). My answer remains the
same for items (1)-(6). I am also asked whether by this time I had become
aware of (7) the Part Two Second Sight Report and (8) the Swift Review.
I was aware of (8) the Swift Review [POL00006355], as that review document
was the basis for my instructions, and, as Rodric Williams’ instructions to me
made clear (at [POL00022765_0001]), a copy of the Swift Review was
provided to me with those instructions (referred to in those instructions as “the
Report”).
As for (6) the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme Briefing Report
- Part One dated 25 July 2014 [POL00075178] and (7) the Initial Complaint
Page 35 of 53
82.
83.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
Review and Mediation Scheme Briefing Report - Part Two dated 9 April 2015
[POL00029849], both were extensively referred to in the Swift Review, in
particular at [POL00006355_0025-0029 and 0034-0037]. I was not, however,
provided with copies of either document.
I believe the case files and the material sent to me were sufficient for the
purposes of the review. I do not know how the case files were selected for my
review or who selected them. What is clear to me was that it was necessary
to review cases files contrary to “POL’s position” (as explained in paragraphs
105 to 109 of the Swift Review (at [POL00006355_0035-0037]) and in my
instructions (at [POL00022765_0003])). In my email to Rodric Williams on 4
April 2016 [POL00025755_0001], I wrote “The recommendation, as
formulated, suggests to me that the only solution would be to proceed to a
review of all such affected cases.”
I concluded (at [POL00006394_0051]) by saying that on the basis of my
review of cases falling within the remit of the review, that the allegation that
there had been a deliberate policy to charge theft, when there was no or
no sufficient evidential basis to support it, just to encourage or influence
pleas of guilty to charges of false accounting, was misplaced. Neither did I
find any evidence in the cases I had been invited to review that theft (or fraud
for that matter) was charged without any proper basis to do so and/or in order
only to encourage or influence guilty pleas to offences of false accounting. I
expressed the view (at [POL00006394_0052-0053]) that POL could be
subject to criticism that it had been using the criminal justice system to enforce
repayment from subpostmasters, and it could be argued that, because
subpostmasters were contractually bound to repay losses, POL was using
(and abusing) the criminal justice process rather than civil litigation to recover
Page 36 of 53
84.
85.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
from offenders. However, in the cases I reviewed, I found that where
consideration had been given to the making of applications for confiscation
and compensation orders, there had been a proper legal and evidential basis
for so doing.
I was not invited to meet, or personally report to, the POL’s Board or the Audit
Committee or any other committee in respect of this advice.
I do not know if, or the extent to which, my recommendations were
implemented.
Altman _Common_Issues Advice [POL00022834], Advice _on Settlement
POL00006401] and Horizon Issues Advice [POL00026461
86.
87.
88.
I received my instructions for these pieces of work from HSF who were then
acting for POL. I dealt with Alan Watts, a partner, and Catherine Emanuel,
who I believe then to have been a senior associate. I am unable to identify the
source of the instructions for this work.
Two of the advices (The Post Office Group Litigation, Advice on the Common
Issues Judgment dated 14 April 2019 [POL00022834] and Note on the
Horizon Issues Judgment dated 8 December 2019 [POL00026461)) related
to the judgments of Mr Justice Fraser in the High Court, and the Advice on
Settlement dated 17 June 2019 [POL00006401] was based on information
that had been provided to me (albeit I cannot recollect in what format) as
outlined at [POL00006401_0001-0002]. I believe that what was provided to
me was sufficient for the purposes of this work.
I am asked if I provided any advice to POL in respect of the use of Gareth
Jenkins in further legal proceedings. I did not provide any advice to POL in
respect of the use of Gareth Jenkins in further legal proceedings. My only
Page 37 of 53
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
awareness of the involvement of Mr Jenkins in the civil proceedings was, I
believe, from what later read in the draft or final judgment of Mr Justice Fraser
in Alan Bates and Others v. Post Office Limited in paragraphs 508 to 516.
The only work record I have of a conference relating to any of these
workstreams is for 2 December 2019 (see [WITN10350110_0002)); this was
a telephone conference with Rodric Williams and Catherine Emanuel and
William Lord of HSF, and it lasted one hour and 15 minutes. I have no note or
independent recollection of this meeting now, but it is clear from the Note on
Horizon Issues Judgment that the meeting did relate to the issues later
documented in my note on the judgment (see [POL00026461_0001)).
lam asked again about my awareness at the time of drafting these advices of
the information/reports referred to previously. I refer to my responses at
paragraphs 79 to 81 above.
The requests for advice on the two judgments of Mr Justice Fraser were
designed to elicit my advice on their possible impact on the safety of past
criminal convictions (see [POL00022834_0001 and _0038}) and/or of the risk
of criminal appeals or the CCRC making references (see
[POL00006401_0002)).
The advice in [POL00022834] and [POL00026461] was expressly about the
impact of the two High Court judgments on past criminal cases and future
criminal appeals.
As for the Advice on Settlement [POL00006401_0002], “Post Office wishe[d]
to understand the risk to the safety of a conviction that might be caused by a
settlement that directly or indirectly awards some compensation or other
benefit to a convicted Claimant.”
I understood the Horizon Issues Trial was ongoing (see
Page 38 of 53
95.
96.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
[POL00006401_0002]) and I wrote “I am asked to advise Post Office on the
tisk to the safety of any conviction if Post Office enters into a settlement with
any or all of the Claimants.”
I added at [POL00006401_0003] “Because no structure for any settlement
has yet been decided, far less whether in principle any settlement negotiations
should be commenced, this advice is inevitably in the abstract. The single
question is whether settlement risks, or is likely to risk, the safety of past
criminal convictions. The nature of this advice may, I understand, even
influence the decision whether to attempt a settlement.” Because of this, at
[POL00006401_0004], I made very clear “It is not for me to advise on the
strategy of any settlement and when and in what circumstances any offer to
settle should be made. That must be a matter for Post Office's commercial
law advisors to advise. I am directing my attention solely at the potential risks
to the safety of criminal convictions in settling (or even attempting to settle)
the 61 convicted Claimants’ claims against Post Office.”
Finally, at [POL00006401_ 0009], I said that “In my opinion, there is some risk
to including convicted Claimants in any settlement agreement or package.” I
added, “At this stage, and in the abstract, I am unable exactly to define or to
quantify the risk. While it has to be a matter for others to advise and decide
how far Post Office should go in progressing a differential approach among
the convicted Claimants and the rest, my advice must be that reaching any
settlement agreement with the convicted Claimants should be a red line for all
the reasons given above.” My final conclusion at paragraph 31(e) in
[POL00006401_ 0010] was “There is therefore in my judgment some risk to
the safety of convictions of including convicted Claimants in any settlement
agreement or package.”
Page 39 of 53
97.
98.
99.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
Thus, the advice, which I had characterised more than once as “in the
abstract’, was solely about the risk to the safety of past convictions of seeking
a settlement with convicted claimants. Consideration of settlement by POL
was then “in its early stages” (see [POL00006401_0001]). I had no
involvement in, or discussions about, the conduct of the civil litigation, and I
did not consider I was providing advice that impacted on the conduct of civil
litigation.
I was not invited to meet, or personally report to, the POL’s Board or the Audit
Committee or any other committee in respect of these advices.
I do not know or remember if, or the extent to which, my views were
implemented.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
100. In about January 2020, following the Horizon Issues Trial judgment, POL
101.
instructed Nick Vamos at P&P to deal with the criminal cases. It was therefore
through P&P that I was instructed to advise POL in the criminal matters and,
following the references made by the CCRC to the CACD in June and July
2020, to represent POL in the CACD.
I am asked to set out my views as to the timing of the disclosure of the
documents/information referred to at paragraphs 25, 40, 50, 56, 69 and 79-81
above (if and insofar as they were disclosed) to appellants. They are: (1) bugs,
errors or defects in Legacy Horizon; (2) the Helen Rose Report; (3) the Second
Sight Interim Report; (4) the August Clarke advice; (5) the Detica report; (6)
the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme Briefing Report - Part One
Second Sight Report; (7) the Part Two Second Sight Report; and (8) the Swift
Review.
Page 40 of 53
102.
103.
104.
105.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
The Disclosure Management Document (“DMD”) dated 19 August 2020 stated
in paragraph 1 [POL00142261_0001] that it was “intended to assist in
informing the Court and the Appellants of the way in which the Prosecutor has
been dealing with the post-conviction disclosure exercise (“PCDE”) to date
and how it proposes to continue to fulfil its disclosure obligations in a clear,
open and transparent way.” At paragraph 8 [POL00142261_0003] , the DMD
set out the duty of post-conviction disclosure, and the broader approach POL
was adopting, and, at paragraphs 12 to 18 [POL00142261_0004-0005] the
methodology for the PCDE, involving both the Case Specific Disclosure
Review and the Generic Disclosure Review (“GDR’).
The DMD also set out (at paragraph 19) [POL00142261_0005] the counsel
and solicitors’ team responsible for the PCDE. The team consisted of a total
of 49 junior counsel who were engaged as first and second level reviewers;
one senior associate, two associates and two paralegals were engaged in the
administration and collation of review material and in reviewing material; four
senior instructed junior counsel were engaged in second level review and
oversight of the PCDE process; while one other Queen's Counsel and I,
together with two P&P partners (including Nick Vamos), were involved in the
oversight of PCDE processes and procedures.
The DMD then set out the sources and repositories of the information
reviewed for disclosure purposes, the Case Specific Review, the GDR and
other ancillary matters.
An Addendum to the Disclosure Management Document (“ADMD”) dated 13
January 2021 (incorrectly dated on the document as “13 January 2020”), at
paragraph 3 [UKGI00017849_0001-0002], outlined the expansion to the
counsel, P&P and disclosure review team since August 2020 and, among
Page 41 of 53
106.
107.
108.
109.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
other matters, detailed the progress to date.
I set out this background to the PCDE and the functions of individual members
of the team in order to explain why I am unable to respond to the question
asked of me. While I have no reason to believe that the specific
documents/information mentioned were not disclosed at some point in time to
appellants, I cannot myself say if and when that happened as regards each
document and, to the extent there was any delay in so doing, whether that
was agreed to by the appellants and/or sanctioned by the CACD. If the Inquiry
requires the detail of the disclosure exercise before and during the CACD
proceedings, there are members of the legal team other than me who should
be able to assist.
The rationale for the cut-off date was set out in the DMD at paragraph 5
[POL00142261_0002] , which stated “Because the appeals are limited to
prosecutions undertaken between the introduction of Horizon and the
Prosecutor ceasing to act as a private Prosecutor, the relevant period for the
purposes of disclosure is 1999/2000 to 2013 (the “Relevant Period”).”
That period was explained further at paragraphs 19 to 21 of the ADMD
[UKGI00017849_0008-0009]: Aria Grace Law (who represented three of the
appellants) had requested that the Relevant Period should be extended
beyond 2013. From correspondence and submissions, it had been
understood that it was suggested that the Relevant Period should cover POL’s
conduct during the Second Sight review, evidence being given to the Select
Committee and during the PCDE undertaken by CK.
Paragraphs 19 to 21 of the ADMD stated:
(1) 2013 had been selected as the end date for the Relevant Period since
it marked the time by which POL had ceased prosecuting. The trials
Page 42 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
of all appellants had been conducted and concluded prior to this time.
(2) The basis for the request had been the contention that POL
deliberately misled the inquiries and/or deliberately failed to make
proper post-conviction disclosure at the time. Unless a document or
an event produced or occurring post-conviction provided evidence of
deliberate conduct or misconduct before or during the proceedings as
could render an appellant's conviction unsafe on grounds of an abuse
of process at the time of trial (such as a later confession to past
wrongdoing), then it had no relevance to the issues the CACD had to
evaluate on abuse of process.
(3) Additionally, POL had had particular regard to the fact that extending
the Relevant Period would necessitate a very substantial expansion
of the PCDE which was not possible within the timetable set down by
the CACD. Such an extension to the Relevant Period would therefore
have inevitably delayed resolution of the appeals. POL considered
that this would be unfair to the overwhelming majority of appellants
who had properly and understandably expressed the clear view that
they wished their cases to be resolved as soon as possible.
(4) POL noted that, at the hearing on 17 December 2020, the CACD was
not prepared to entertain wide-ranging inquiries into POL’s conduct,
particularly where that conduct occurred after POL had ceased to
prosecute cases involving Horizon in 2013.
110. At paragraph 21 of the ADMD [UKGI00017849_ 0009], the document added
“For the avoidance of doubt, some material post-dating the Relevant Period
has been reviewed (and disclosed where appropriate) where it is relevant to
POL’s conduct and/or knowledge during the Relevant Period. However, where
Page 43 of 53
111.
112.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
such material is relevant only to POL’s conduct/knowledge after the end of the
Relevant Period, it is not deemed disclosable.”
In response to the ADMD, counsel for the appellants Scott Darlington, Stanley
Fell, Peter Holmes (deceased), Rubina Shaheen and Pamela Lock (“the five
Appellants”) served a Disclosure Management Document on behalf of
Edward Fail, Bradshaw & Waterson Appellants dated 1 February 2021
(incorrectly dated 1 January 2021). In it, at paragraph 18, they argued to
extend the period of disclosure to post-2013 material, not because they
thought material might be relevant to Ground 2 of appeal per se, but because
they wanted to rely on examples of misconduct as a form of “bad character”
evidence.
In a Response to Disclosure Request made on behalf of Appellants
represented by Edward Fail, Bradshaw & Waterson, dated 11 February 2021
[WITN10350111_ 0001-0002], P&P explained again the rationale underlying
the Relevant Period and declined to revise it [WITN10350111_0004]. In their
Skeleton Disclosure Argument [POL00167828], dated 25 February 2021,
counsel for the five Appellants indicated that on 15 February 2021 they had
invited the CACD to rule on the issue and made their argument to extend the
period of disclosure [POL00167828_0001-0002]. In paragraphs 3 to 7 of a
Response to Disclosure Skeleton Argument submitted on behalf of Appellants
represented by Edward Fail, Bradshaw & Waterson, dated 3 March 2021
[POL00133185_0001-0002], which were drafted by (then) junior counsel on
behalf of POL, those arguments were addressed in full. At paragraph 7
[POL00133185_0002], counsel for POL noted “that none of the other 37
Appellants in this appeal has submitted that the Relevant Period requires
extension, nor that the interests of justice require a delay to the hearing of the
Page 44 of 53
113.
114.
115.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
appeals in order properly to advance the grounds for which leave to appeal
has been given.”
In its Reasons in support of Order of 10.3.2021 regarding Disclosure
Applications [WITN10350103], at paragraph 2 [WITN10350103_0002], the
CACD said “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.” At paragraph 3 [WITN10350103_0002], the CACD added “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.” The CACD concluded at
paragraph 4 [WITN10350103_0002], “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.”
Moreover, it is axiomatic that misconduct after the event of a conviction cannot
render an otherwise safe conviction unsafe. Accordingly, the ADMD made
clear that unless a document or an event produced or occurring post-
conviction provided evidence of deliberate conduct or misconduct before or
during the proceedings as could render an appellant's conviction unsafe on
grounds of an abuse of process at the time of trial (such as a later confession
to past wrongdoing), then it had no relevance to the issues the CACD had to
evaluate on abuse of process (see paragraph 109(2) above).
lam also asked to what extent (if any) I consider the timing of disclosure to
appellants and any cut-off date for documentation that was considered to be
Page 45 of 53
116.
117.
118.
119.
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
disclosable (1) impacted on the decisions of some appellants as to whether or
not to pursue Ground 2 of the appeal and (2) influenced POL’s approach to the
concessions that it made, and what, if any, advice was given in this regard.
Insofar as point (1) of the question is concerned, I have no insight into whether
the timing of disclosure and the cut-off date for documentation that was
considered to be disclosable impacted on the internal decision-making of
some appellants to pursue Ground 2 of the appeal. However, I believe that the
paragraphs above, not least the CACD’s clear reasoning for approving the
Relevant Period, demonstrate that the Relevant Period for disclosure as set
out in the DMD, and further explained in the ADMD, was correct.
In respect of point (2) of the question, POL’s concessions to Ground 1 of the
appeal in 39 of the 42 cases, and to Ground 2 of the appeal in four of the 42
cases, related directly to the evidence underlying the appellants’ cases within
the framework of the grounds of appeal, which the CACD was being invited
to determine.
I am asked to explain why the Disclosure Note in relation to the Context for
‘the Clarke Advice’ [POL00038814] (as updated at [POL00142409]) does not
address the August 2013 Clarke Advice. The context note was expressly
designed to accompany the Submissions Document [POL00158692] (and
see, in particular [POL00158692_0001 and _0004]). The August 2013 advice
[POL00006799] covered the duty to record and retain material. It was
immaterial to the context for, and the disclosure of, the July 2013 Clarke
Advice [POL00006798}], which was the advice that was the subject of Nick
Wallis's application of 26 November 2020 (see [POL00158692_0002]).
I am asked if I consider the disclosure that was made in the CACD
proceedings to have been sufficient and appropriate (including in respect of
Page 46 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
the detail and timing). Again, I do not have the detail, or the timing of, the
disclosure made before or during the CACD proceedings. But in very broad
terms and, given the CACD’s view in March 2021 that the review had been
“thoroughly and professionally conducted”, I have no reason to believe
otherwise. Again, if the Inquiry requires to understand the detail of the
disclosure exercise before and during the CACD proceedings, there are
members of the legal team other than me who should be able to assist.
Conclusions
120.
121.
122.
I am asked, whether in hindsight, there is anything I would have done
differently in respect of the matters raised in my statement and whether there
are other matters I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair.
I have considered with great care whether there is anything I would or should
have done differently. However, I cannot say there is. I gave my professional
advice and arrived at my conclusions at all times based only on the
information, knowledge and belief I possessed at the material time.
I have sought to help the Inquiry in providing this detailed witness statement
in response to the Inquiry’s Request. I hope the information I have provided
will be of assistance, not only to the Inquiry in fulfilling its Terms of Reference,
but also to those affected, as well as enabling the Inquiry to understand my
role and the context of my involvement.
Page 47 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Brian Altman I
Signed:
Dated: 4 April 2024
Page 48 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
URN
Document Description
Control Number
POL00006803
Altman QC's
review of
Brian
general
prosecutions
POL-0017620
POL00006804
Terms of Reference for
the Appointment of Brian
Altman Q.C
POL-0017621
POL00040044
Terms of reference for the
Appointment of Brian
Altman QC
POL-0036526
POL00006802
Advice by Brian Altman
QC on the prosecution
role of the Post Office
POL-0017619
POL00040036
Terms of Reference for the
Appointment of Brian
Altman QC
POL-0036518
POL00065929
Seema Misra case study:
Email from Rodric Williams
to Mark Underwood and
Patrick Bourke re: Post
Office - Balancing
Transactions [BD-
4A.FID26610170]
POL-0062408
POL00006801
Brian Altman QC's interim
review
POL-0017618
POL00021982
Draft Terms of Reference
for the Appointment of
Brian Altman QC
POL-0018461
POL00021980
Email from Gavin
Matthews to Susan
Crichton, Rodric Williams,
Hugh Flemington and
others re: Brian Altman
QC - terms of Reference
POL-0018459
ie)
POL00006769
Note of conference with
Brian Altman QC
POL-0017616
11
WITN10350105
Work record [1] for Brian
Altman QC — for the period
25.7.13- 4.10.13
WITN10350105
M2
POLO0066807
RESPONSE TO THE
POL-0063286
Page 49 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
INTERIM REVIEW OF
CARTWRIGHT _ KING’S
CURRENT PROCESS BY
BRIAN ALTMAN QC
13
POL00026461
Note on Horizon Issues
Judgment
POL-0022940
4
POL00030214
Draft Report by Helen
Rose on Horizon Data for
Lepton SPSO 191320
POL-0026696
15
POL00029650
Interim Report into the
alleged problems with the
Horizon system
POL-0026132
M6
POL00029677
Draft Report on Fraud and
Non-conformance in the
Post Office; Challenges
and
Recommendations
POL-0026159
M7
POL00006798
Legal advice on the use
of expert evidence
POL-0017590
18
POL00158692
Submissions on behalf of
the respondent re
application by Nick Wallis
for access to
papers in the proceedings
POL-BSFF-0014659I
19
WITN10350106
Work record [2] for Brian
Altman QC — for the period
5.10.13- 19.12.13
WITN10350106
20
POL00040194
Observations and analysis
of the Cartwright King
Prosecution Review
Process
POL-0036676
21
POL00125442
Bond Dickinson - Personal
attendance note re: POL's
policy including
enforcement policy to
prosecute SPMs
POL-0131222
22
POL00105068
Advice Report on Papers
for Post Office Ltd Board
POL-0080700
23
WITN10350107
Work record [3] for Brian
Altman QC — for the period
6.1.14- 20.5.14
WITN10350107
24
POL00061549
Email chain from Rodric
Williams to Claire Webb
and Jonny Gribben re: FW:
POL-0058028
Page 50 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
Call with Brian Altman QC
- Subject to Legal Privilege
25
POL00040254
Email chain between
Gavin Matthews, Rodric
Williams, Andrew Parsons
and others RE: Advice
from Brian Altman QC on
Suggested Approach to
Criminal Case Mediation
POL-0036736
26
POL00006368
Advice to POL on
suggested approach to
criminal case mediation,
by Mr Altman QC
POL-0017636
27
WITN10350108
Work record [4] for Brian
Altman QC - for the period
11.7.14- 6.12.14
WITN10350108
28
POL00075178
Initial Complaint Review
and Mediation Scheme
Briefing Report Part One
POL-0071741
29
POLO0006588
Advice on Theft and
False Accounting: Brian
Altman QC
POL-0017852
30
POL00125777
Email chain from Brian
Altman to Parsons Andrew
cc'ing Gavin Matthews RE:
Post Office - False
Accounting and Theft [BD-
4A.FID26231777]
POL-0131385
31
POL00006394
Review of Post Office Ltd
Criminal Prosecutions -
Brian Altman QC - July
2016
POL-0017699
32
POL00006355
Review on behalf of the
Chairman of Post Office
Ltd concerning the steps
taken in response to
various complaints made
by sub-postmasters
POL-0017623
33
POL00022765
Instructions to Brian
Altman QC from POL
POL-0019244
34
POL00025755
Email from Rodric Williams
to Brian Altman QC; re:
instructions for Brian
Altman QC
POL-0022234
Page 51 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
35
WITN10350109
Work record [7] for Brian
Altman QC — for the period
18.2.16- 29.7.16
WITN10350109
B36
POL00029849
Initial Complaint Review
Mediation Scheme:
Second Sight Briefing
Report - Part Two
POL-0026331
37
POL00022834
The Post Office Group
Litigation, Advice on the
Common Issues Judgment
POL-0019313
38
POL00006401
Advice on Settlement -
Brian Altman QC
POL-0017706
39
WITN10350110
Work record [13] for Brian
Altman QC — for the period
29.11.19- 20.12.19
WITN10350110
40
POL00142261
Disclosure Management
Document
POL00142261
41
UKGI00017849
Addendum to the
Disclosure Management
Document
UKGI00017849
A2
WITN10350111
Response to Disclosure
Request made on behalf of
Appellants represented by
Edward Fail, Bradshaw &
Waterson
WITN10350111
43
POL00167828
Skeleton Disclosure
Argument
POL00167828
4
POL00133185
Response to Disclosure
Skeleton Argument
submitted on behalf of
Appellants represented by
Edward Fail, Bradshaw &
Waterson
POL00133185
45
WITN10350103
Reasons in support of
Order of 10.3.2021
regarding Disclosure
Applications
WITN10350103
46
POL00038814
Disclosure note in relation
to the context for 'The
Clarke Advice’ (Rv.
Hamilton & others)
POL-0027700
A7
POL00142409
Updated disclosure note in
relation to the context for
"The Clarke Advice" - TO
POL-0143641
Page 52 of 53
WITN10350100
WITN10350100
BE PROVIDED
A8
POL00006799
Advice on Disclosure and
the Duty to Record and
Retain Material
POL-0017591
Page 53 of 53