221 tweets
JB notes the main source of info for JS was the legal depart of the PO, who are, as we now know, complicit in the scandal and its cover-up
JB did you know the PO legal dept was the main source of info for the review
TP yes
JB takes him to the scope
… of the review…
Sets out who JS met
JB takes him to the theft charge bait and switch issue in JS's report
… the case being referred to here is Jo Hamilton…
… keeps reading…
… reading on…
… and on…
JB takes him to the "stain on the character of the business" par
Here's the rest…
JB strong language
TP quite strong – here's the problem – charging people with theft to get them to plead guilty to false accounting is highlighted
JB goes to JS's recs
JB so there are serious concerns here
TP yes
JB moves onto bugs in H in JS's report
JB reads to it
… he finishes reading par 126…
… continues into par 127…
JB a series of observations or views you would consider reasonable?
TP yep
JB takes him to par 145 and reads it out
JB When you received the report did you know about the remote access issues
TP don't think so
JB did you know there was a concern that either the PO or Fujitsu (F) had the facility to access branches
TP not sure – my take on it was…
… in theory there is a remote access problem, let's see and try to understand this theoretical ability. How practical is it in fact to remotely access accounts. That was my takeaway.
JB what about incorrect and incomplete public comments
TP yeah my reaction at the time to JS's report was that we should get to the conclusions, enact them and see where we were – it was something I was aware of and perhaps we should have jumped up and said something publicly. But I wanted to do the work first to understand it.
JB who told you remote access was only theoretically possible
TP I think it's what JS says
JB takes him to report concs
… and reads to it…
… continues on… at end of 5 he asks
JB did you understand this meant from the beginning of Legacy H in 2000
TP yes it was a critical issue, but I'm not sure that came through to me as a big thing at the time…
JB reads on to par 6
this is the end of par 6
JB on reading this you would have no reason to reject the recs
TP yes
JB reasonable and sensible and grounded in the text which preceded them
TP yes absolutely
JB takes him to what JS said about what 2S said about suspense accounts
JB are these reasonable and grounded recs
TP yes I agree
JB takes him to issues of helpline inaccuracies
JB overall was there a wide range of work to be done in the outcome of the JS review
TP yes – it wasn't a perfect piece of work, it was not a bad piece of work and it yielded some good rec
JB did it reveal reputational risks
TP there were some issues that needed addressing…
… pretty urgently
JB and what about my question – significant reputational issues
TP [eventually] yes
JB you had a decision to make about who the review should be shared with
TP yes
JB did you have a view on who it should be shared with
TP it was always envisaged the JS review would be legally privileged
JB the report on its face is not marked as privileged and it doesn't say it's been provided for teh purpose of ongoing litigation and it's not for legal…
… advice is it?
TP no but GC told me it should be and that was understood by civil servants as well, with a view, once the recommendations had been completed it would be shared more widely
JB where is the assumption the report would be privileged held?
TP don't know – that was my assumption and the advice I received at the time?
JB orally or in writing
TP don't know
JB who gave you the advice
TP Jane McLeod the GC
JB JM says in her WS that TP said I told him not to brief the board. My recollection is that Ken McCall asked if the board would be briefed and I briefed the board orally.
TP that's what she wrote in her WS – she advised me the report should be 4 copies, none saved to a hard…
… disk etc and I am sure she told me it would be four copies, legally privileged and held by the legal dept. There was no intention to hide the report as such, but it was a legally privileged doc. I got the advice and I took it.
JB so advice from JM directly to you
TP yes
JB… that this was a legally privileged doc
TP yes
JB what were the consequences of being advised the report enjoys legal privilege
TP I wanted to get a result from the report, but then I get the advice its privileged – as I understood it,
… the GC and her team would take forward the recs and when those recs had been completed the outputs would be shared
JB what did it stop you from doing
TP I thought the report was circumscribed to those people in the legal process
JB were you
… advised that or did you assume it.
TP I clearly felt that this report would be held in a tightly knit group of people in the legal dept
JB did this stop effective board level discos
TP it certainly did – they were aware of it – my feeling was the recs would come out…
… pretty quickly. that didn't happen
JB did you understand you were prevented from sharing the report
TP yes
JB what was the problem with sharing it with the board who have a duty of confidentiality
TP that it was a restriction on the
… circulation of the report. I wish we had shared it. Possibly suitably redacted. It was just one of those things. I was advised and I took the advice. It unfortunate that advice taken from specialists might have been tested in a different way.
JB did JM advise you directly you were prevented from sharing this with the board
TP can't tell you, but what possible motive would I have for hiding this from the board. I had no vested interest. It was the advice I received and I followed it.
JB JM says that she told the board was available on request if anyone wanted it – were you at that meeting
TP I probably would have been there
JB can you recall it being said – it's not minuted
TP no
TP the legal privilege things was around the FOI mechanism – at UKGI – things that got into the hands of BEIS civil servants etc could then become available – so that coloured the discussion over Swift
JB takes him to an email from JM to TP about how to brief the minister on the JS review in Jan 2016
JB takes him to what TP says to minister. Keep it oral or lose privilege
JB so this is a reflection of a call JM had with JS and advice on how to brief the minister
TP yep
JB the "no limitations from his perspective" on the JS report, but legal privilege could be lost – did you understand a choice had to be made on the JS report
TP my understanding was that if something was physical that could be subject to a loss of legal privilege so I conflated that into what I could say to the minister – don't know really
JB I can either brief her orally or I can give her a copy of the report and that may result…
… in a loss of privilege.
TP we were all assuming or felt this document would have legally privileged, so I didn't realise there was a choice
SWW at the time, was there any disco about who enjoyed the privilege if privilege existed
TP no
SWW it strikes me that there are only two possibilities – either you personally enjoyed the privilege or PO
TP my knowledge of privilege at the time was not sufficiently sophisticated
… to understand the distinction
SWW was there any disco about it
TP no
SWW you know it's possible to waive privilege if you want to – did anyone ask you to waive privilege
TP don't recall
… but I can only say that nothing happened in that regard. It didn't get raised at the time I think.
SWW so at the moment no one asked if there was a waiver of privilege
TP from my recollection no
JB did you inform BNR or Biz or ShEx that you would not be…
… providing the report as it might lose privilege.
TP don't know what the minister was told. But I had this report, I had nothing to stop me showing it, but I had advice not to share the report with the minister.
JB but not explicit recollection of being told not to share…
… it with the minister.
TP no
[2nd morning break begins]
[we're back]
JB takes him to an email from Tom Cooper (PO UKGI director) to Sarah Munby [Biz dept person]
JB BNR did not ask you to hire a QC did she
TP no
JB is TC's last par here accurate?
TP no PV summarised the report to the board and JM supplied a briefing and BEIS (the biz dept) certainly were aware of report
JB the word existence appears to apply to the follow up work
TP oh I c – I think that was part of the consequences of the report being stopped and the work being taken forward by the GC under the litigation
JB this email circulating UKGI on 16 9 2020 – JB reads to it
JB notes TP alleged sig error of judgment in accepting the legal advice – was this shared with you
TP no – when TC became aware of it he probably had a disco with Ken McCall – but no one came up to me in the corridor and told me I'd messed up
JB were you chastised for your decision more formally
TP don't remember it
JB continues that KM had some sympathy with your position and thinks it would be unfair to take action – TC says he hasn't asked anyone to discuss with UKGI
JB did you know anything about this – that there was a disco about action against you
TP no recollection of any formal disco about this – I do feel its quite a fine hindsight judgment that this is a sig error of judgment – JS was something which produced some good…
… consequences – 1, 2 7, and 8 were all followed through, plus the work which became Bramble was followed through and informed the litigation. had JS been discod at board level it might have affected the litigaiton, but once the litigation was started, the GLO proved…
… to be a comprehensive settlement of a lot of complex issues. Had everyone read JS and said Oh there's a problem – would anyone have looked at the contract and torn it up and found the H system unreliable. We would have gone to the govt and said we've got an unfair…
… contract and H is full of bugs. My view is the debate that would have ensued about a reliable system and compensation due etc…. but I do believe a judge-determined settlement of all these issues should have resulted in a compensation settlement for all affected.
This things has all been wrong and a comprehensive settlement is due to all concerned. And it's taken far too long.
JB are you saying by that answer that it took a group of brave and determined SPMS to hold the PO to account and the PO was incapable of doing it itself.
TP the PO should have done it internally, but once it was in train, had it been handled better it could have been done without the delay and cost – but a judge-led determination was the best way to sort it out
JB so it would always have a taken a judge to hold the PO to account
TP all I'm saying that in my view, practically speaking – trying to see if this could have been managed internally to the same result – I'm not sure.
[his argument on this point is scuppered by the PO's attempt to try to recuse the judge – surprised JB didn't bring it up]
JB takes him to the telling off that TP got for not sharing the JS review with BNR
JB this is the formal equivalent of being taken aside in a corridor and being given a telling off
TP yes it is
JB continues to read…
… down to the sign off…
JB so as far as you were aware this was the end point of the consideration by gov as to its approach to your decision not to disclose the JS review in 2015
TP got this email in 2020 and didn't hear anything since
JB that was the end of it
TP yes
TP on the first page – let me at the risk of sounding boring on the subject I think it's important to place what I would accept in hindsight was a misjudgment
JB thank you
TP not a lawyer – I took strong legal advice – I had no reason to chuck it into the long grass…
… in the context of the inquiry it's easy to think that all I was dealing with was Swift. there was an awful lot going on. So I accept the slap on the wrist, but there's context.
JB also you were working 1.5 days a week
TP yes
JB and you asked for that to be reduced to 2 days
… a month.
TP I did – an effective chair – based on my experience – being a chair is about time spent in a biz but also about the capacity to understand a biz's problems and having a relationship with a CEO
… you seem to be suggesting that this was about me not spending enough time at the PO. I would say I was an active energetic chair who took time to understand the business. Time was not the reason I made this error of judgment with hindsight.
JB takes him to what looks like PV speaking notes in Jan 2016 to the board
Takes him to "Sparrow" section on Chairman's review
[also note the complaint to the BBC]
[the complaint to the BBC (still going on in Jan after our August tx) was huge and completely nonsensical. When we finally got them to spell out exactly what their problem was, it boiled down to the fact we didn't tell the Richard Roll's name before tx – a wise decsion given…
… the PO sent legal letters to every other contributor with a threat about defamatory statements]
JB is this the extent of info provided to the board about the Swift review
TP she also had a table of recommendations
JB was it limited
TP it seems benign set out there
JB it underplays it
TP [laughs] yeah you could get the impression there wasn't much going on…
JB takes him to a meeting between TP and BNR
JB takes him to second to last point – did you actually say this
TP I have no idea – there was no systemic problem whatever systemic was understood to mean – in terms of the press – peak interest is my comment
JB were they truly the takeaways from the JS review?
… rather than he's made 8 recommendations…
TP don't know – it was a report… it wasn't the final report
JB no but the 8 recs were as they were to appear
TP yep
JB takes him to a letter TP wrote to BNR after the final JS report
JB reads to the legal professional privilege point and asks what it means
TP seems not to know – just following legal advice
JB this was drafted by JM and reviewed by JS
TP yes
JB you said this was your review in this letter
TP semantics
JB did you have the opportunity to object to it
TP I was happy with the report and took ownership of it
JB we see from the letter they were informed of the headline findings – we go to the end
JB raises penultimate par which notes that the CCRC are now involved and the PO had received a letter before action from the JFSA. You were advised to write a detailed letter on the understanding it would not lose privilege
TP yes it sets out the JS issues and explains things…
… as far as we can without actually handing the report over.
[we break for lunch]
We're back and we're going to the 8 recs in the JS review
[you can read the review here btw – I embedded it on this webpage – it's official title was Chairman's review – www.postofficescandal.uk/post/secret-2016-post-office-chairman-s-report-not-shared-with-po-board/]
JB whose responsibility was it for taking the 8 recs from the JS review forwards
TP the GC, JM
JB did it not occur to you the board should have been involved
TP because it was privileged the board was not involved
JB takes TP to a JM email which has an update on her progress
JB was this a one-to-one relationship – she was doing this work for you and your behalf
TP yes
JB reads to it – BD have done work on the helpline and essentially give it a clean bill of health, we're talking to Deloitte and they have begun work, Deloitte are also doing suspense accounts, BA QC is looking at prosecutions
JB notes TP replies with some frustration [report issued in Feb and now it was mid-may] – were you frustrated
TP yes
JB did you notice the recommendations by JS were being trimmed
TP no…?
JB takes him to JM's scope for BA – this was not the original recommendation
TP I see your point – I assumed she would have spoken to JS and agreed that was the way forward. I hadn't picked up that things were being trimmed as such
JB JM forwards your email about frustration to a small team
TP these are the same four people who received the JS report
JB notes JM saying how far we – the four of them – should address JS's questions – was it for them to do that?
TP I assumed perhaps wrongly that the GC's team were competent, would do things in good faith and would respond effectively to the recs in the report
TP when you get to see these emails of what's going on behind the scenes it puts a different complexion on them
JB there's no suggestion from me at least that this email was provided to you – was it right for this team to determine JS's recs should be taken forward and in what..
… way.
TP until I got to the PO i thought most people did what was asked of them to the extent of their abilities
JB do I take it from that answer that this team had taken on the function of how far to go about discharging a function you would have had something to say
TP I would be concerned
JB and you did not know what was going on
TP no
JB goes to the point about doing any work given the litigation – does the same apply
TP I can see your point…
… but you are only looking at evidence on a piece of paper and people can and cannot truly reflect what was going on – things that are recorded cannot nec truly reflect what was going on
JB some people have sat in that chair and told us what they wrote did not…
… reflect what they meant.
TP [laughs] very good
JB takes him to a 27 May 2016 email from JM about her actioning the JS review now it is heading towards litigation
JB who told you bout the litigation
TP can't remember
JB did anyone tell you it may impact the JS review before this?
TP can't remember
JB reads the par about JS and AdgR
TP that is what happened I think
JB was this your main means of comms with JM – email? Rather than face-to-face
TP I am sure we discod it
JB did you
TP can't confirm that
JB takes him to an email from 10 June 2016 post a disco with AdgR – advising stopping work on JS review
… TP suggests a meeting to disco
JB the JS review was a sig piece of work
TP yes
JB it concerned miscarrs and took a long time
TP indeed
JB given this did it occur to you that undertaking the recs of the JS review via civil litigation was not the way forwards
TP receiving advice from senior counsel on a legal matter, strong advice – i took that advice. I assumed that the GC would have considered and appreciated any implications and ramifications of doing this, so it's a v difficult q… when you look at this in hindsight…
…we could have spent more time on it. How do you deal with it tho – get another specialist in? Trust your view of the specialist? Distrust the specialist? Suspect the whole bunch of them were up to something
JB so you thought it reasonable to rely on the advice of your GC
TP whether it came from JS and/or JM – they are and were both qualified to give a view
JB it didn't occur that what might be in the PO's narrow interests in the civil litigaiton might not be in the interests of convicted SPMs
TP with hindisght there were motives underpinning
… what wasn't going on was fair or whatever, but it seemed to me at the time that this was good faith advice and what we should do
JB brings an email chain – starts with Andy Parsons from WBD who was involved in civil litigation. it goes to AdgR
were you a member of the litigation steering group
TP no
JB who was
TP PO execs and legal people
JB reads about TP feeling he has a commitment to BNR and needs to follow throguh on the JS rec – is that true?
TP yes
JB reads on – PO are looking to us not to complete rec etc – did this message come from you?
TP no this was going on without my knowledge
JB who is POL then?
TP I wasn't part of it – don't know
JB did you know there was a group of people looking to stifle or end the JS recommendations
TP no
JB scrolls down with AP's three reasons why TP should not finish his investigations
JB was any of this reasoning ever explained to you for not carrying out the JS recs?
TP no
JB reads point 2. was that explained to you
TP no – the only info I got was that this work should be stopped and continued for the litigation under privilege
JB was point 3 ever explained to you
TP no what I got out of all that was the the strong advice was that we should bin the work and repurpose it
JB keeps reading AP asking AdgR to provide cover for TP to have an excuse to halt the work for the minister – you're being implicated here
TP it makes me look like the marionette – v disappointing you expect to get advice from lawyers in good faith
JB so to the extent this implicates you – that you feel empowered to say you're ceasing your review – and you need political cover – neither of those are true
TP no I got the advice and communicated it to BEIS.
JB takes him to a new doc – did you know the small select team was formulating messaging for you
TP no
JB goes to Patrick Bourke's response which calls the work on the JS review "irrelevant" "fruitless" and "senseless" – was this ever explained to you
TP no
[that doc seems to be the first idea that the GLO was the only way forward for the PO]
JB did any of this get to you
TP no all I remember was being told strong advice is not to continue
JB is this the true reason for not continuing with the JS review
TP looks that way
[NEW TOPIC – group litigation]
JB says there's a LOT of stuff about this in TP's WS, so he's only going to pick at it.
Wants to consider the strikeout application [this was a really big deal at the time as everything was heading towards trial]
JB takes him to an email from JM and reads it out
… continues…
JB takes him back to the TP reply to this
JB so you were concerned about the judge's (J)'s criticism of the PO
TP yes – just trying to get the chronology – progressively J became more critical and what started as even-handed, by this stage he was critical of the PO – so I asked what people thought
JB you say at the end. – interesting to know if we change tack – was that a q to JM
TP yes – I'm inviting a comment
JB what role did you play in setting and amending the PO's strategy in the GLO (group litigation)
TP there are emails about this
JB that's much later
TP sorry
TP at this stage there is concern, but I"m not sure what happened as a consequence
JB so what role did you perform you weren't on the litigation steering committee
TP we'd formed the board sub-committee – so not sure if this was going through the execs or the board
… maybe execs
JB because of who it's cc'd to
TP yes
JB who did make decisons about the litigation strategy
TP board subcommittee
JB gov?
TP Tom Cooper (TC) was the gov rep and he was on the board subcommittee for that reason
JB takes him to email exchange between TP and TC
TP this was me asking "guys what are we going to do about this"?
JB so what did happen?
TP TC and I were colleagues on this committee – there is a subsequent email chain, and someone spoke to JM and I think PV summarised the outputs of our disco
JB is the answer that litigation strat was the subcommittee, but there were back channels such as this one in which the subcommittee communicated
TP yes – and exec members had to escalate as appropriate
JB takes him to March 2019 and the recusal application. Starts with an email from JM to TP and Alisdair Cameron (then the temp CEO)
JB reads it out…
Reads on….
Reads on…
JB do you recall this?
TP yes
JB what was your initial reaction to this?
TP an element of unease – if I had had some meaningful statistics about how often judges were recused it might have changed our decision. My gut feel – i was uneasy I have to say
JB cause of your unease
TP quite a big deal to suggest to a judge they'd got things wrong on technical grounds
JB takes him to an email from JM which contains a meeting readout with the PO minister
JB why were you having a meeting with the minister
TP they were getting concerned. TC felt it was important she was up to speed
JB what part did gov play in deciding to for recusal
TP TC clearly had some influence tho he recused himself from the decision, but he was the conduit through which I assumed we were getting a departmental view
JB why was that needed?
TP matters had got very serious. The first trial gave us a loss on every count and our sole shareholder was concerned on all counts – cost, reputation all sorts of things
JB why did you say you thought the board was unlikely to want to recuse
TP most of us think judges tend to get it right and so it would have excited a certain amount of unease that we thought he'd got it wrong
JB was biased
TP and was biased
JB why think this might be something the board would not do
TP I didn't decide
JB because you were chair of courts
TP yes I'm not trying to back out of this – we got advice – Grabiner's was pretty strong – saying we had a duty to do this
JB he did. what did you understand that to mean
TP that the business, the administration of the law, if we thought something wrong had happened we had to do something
JB so as a matter of company law or…
… if you wish to win this litigation, procedurally you need to take this now – what was it
TP can't say – don't want to make too much of the duty thing – we got advice from two v v senior lawyers and we took it
JB you say were not aware of the F employee Gareth Jenkins (GJ) issue until much later
TP mmm
JB takes him to a document
IT'S THE CLARKE ADVICE!
[you can read the Clarke Advice here www.postofficescandal.uk/post/the-first-clarke-advice/ – it's this scandal's unexploded bomb. Well, it exploded at the Court of Appeal, but 8 years after it was written]
JB is reading elements of it out
…. and more…
…. and more…
JB when were you first made aware of the Simon Clarke Advice
TP years after the event. Don't think JS was shown this
JB correct
TP after the trials maybe?
JB the civil litigation?
TP yeah
JB your reaction on seeing it
TP it's hard not to draw the conclusion that decisions might have been different had a lot of things been known at the time – the whole horrible raft of events – "the wall against breaking them down gets higher and higher"
JB takes him to a special board meeting in Nov 2020 – "quite the cast list"
JB This is the earliest we can see a ref was made to the Clarke Advice in any board meeting
TP agrees this is the first he had heard of it (or couldnt say he'd heard it before)
JB when the Clarke Advice (CA) was revealed to the board, did anything happen as a result
TP um…
JB did you say how come I never saw this? I commissed JS to look at stuff…
TP in context there was a lot going and in 2021 we had 60 board meetings to do with the fallout from…
… the litigation so it might have slipped through. It was an incredibly busy time. We found out the whole basis on which the business was constructed was wrong and needed putting right. it was a lot of work
[we have a break. Core Participants Questions next]
[Ed Henry KC first (EH)]
EH did it occur to you that SPMs were working hard for themselves – why would they steal from their own businesses?
TP with hindsight if I had seen how many people had been convicted or terminated or an employment issue the scale of the problem…
… would have been apparent. The lack of response was due to the scale we saw at first. You're right – how many people do you need before you think this can't be right.
EH when you notify the gov to the Sec of State you say 959 cases have been identified where H issues had been used to secure a conviction
TP when was that written
EH let's get it on screen.
[here it is]
EH did you never question the conventional wisdom that this huge cohort of SPMs was statistically significant and it did not make sense
TP when I turned up there were 136 in mediation and 26 at the CCRC. I didn't become aware of how many there were…
… until quite late in the day, and you may ask why didn't we ask and I think we should have asked and if we got that number earlier that might have precipitated a completely different response…
TP I know it's an unsatisfactory response to your and your clients – if this ever happened again we should ask how many people are involved.
EH so that statistical analysis came far too late
TP I agree with you on that
EH did you – notwithstanding the advice you got re the recusal – did you reflect what it might mean for the SPMS – it would have killed the claim stone dead
TP it always seemed to me that had this been managed in a more cooperative manner, it could have ended up with a judge…
… determined view on the contract etc, but it was an adversarial litigation and both sides were trying to win… but yes had the recusal thing happened it could have stopped it stone dead… my intention was to fight a fair battle and one of the issues was the legal teams…
… got into we want to win at any costs and people were doubling down – it is one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the whole affair
EH had you lost control of the litigation – the lawyers were out of control?
TP I'm not releasing myself from responsibility
… I think what I'm trying to highlight is that the balance between the client and the lawyers and the tail can wag the dog and that's what happened when we came to recusal. I was uneasy. I don't know how many judges are recused. I don't think it's many.
EH when you sent out letters of apology was that performative – or did you mean it
TP I toyed with giving an apology today – I discussed and I was told people have got a bit tired of that and I might annoy people. In these circs it's very hard to prove your sorrow is genuine
… there is no way to say sorry in a convincing way as the damage has been done. I don't think a good letter could have been written.
EH when you signed those letters did you have the view that the SPMs were guilty or liable… how hard was it to accept that the SPMS were not…
… "at it".
TP my view was once we reached the end of the trials, the game was up – when you have a business which is so upside down in terms of its relationships… we needed to change completely. We have tried or I did until I left in 2022
EH so you don't believe a mindset of blame exists within the organisation
TP I would say Nick Read (current CEO) and his team have put in a huge amount of effort. Some people at the PO who were there at the time… they're still there.
… and we can't change a culture overnight. and we can't sack everyone. but we've tried to change the culture. But the money I can't speak for as that's a matter for the shareholder
EH what's your view of the PO's take that my client Teju Adedayo – despite having her conviction quashed – the PO have said it doesn't accept her conviction was unsafe – what do you say to her continuing victimisation
TP not going to comment on that
EH but her conviction was quashed and the PO still brand her a criminal – is there not something in that you want to distance yourself from?
TP can't
SWW says that's fair enough
EH you were distracted whilst you were working for the PO
TP I would say that being an effective chair is to do with time and judgment and I think one's judgments are improved by having different things to do
EH that's what Allan Leighton said. THere was an awful lot of stuff going on in the business, but surely reducing your hours before the GLO was a critical error of judgment
TP I gave all the time and attention I needed to to the job. Speak to anyone.
[there is a discussion about Tim McCormack's emails]
TP if I get an email about legal matters I will often ask questions and whilst we should have grappled with TIm's points and it's v unsatisfactory it was handed over to people who weren't going to handle it well.
TP it was not a function of me not having enough time
EH why not go to the ends of the earth to find out whether or not an innocent woman had been imprisioned.
TP I tried to grapple with this through the collection of issues which came together – this was an individual case
… by not running after it suggesting we didn't care about it is not fair.
EH you got a grooming pack from Mark Davies and you were compromised and immured in prejudice despite your desire to be independent
TP behind the set of events we have been discussing today there are
… complex set of interactions between people. Whulst your characterisation has some truth to it – it's more complex than that. Sometimes the wool was pulled, sometimes it wasn't. The root causes of this thing at the end of the day probably reside in the software…
… and the processes of investigation. It happened in 2000 to 2010 – quite historic.
EH all the more reasons to keep it all battened down in the GLO
TP yes it's got an unsatisfactory tinge to it as Alan Bates had to get the funding and had to fight, but it was the best…
… outcome as it brought clarity and change.
EH your answer that it had to be resolved adversarialy is fatalistic – it had to go to litigation – it could not be settled.
TP I could easily imagine a situation where your clients are worse off – a quite robust scenario
… the moment you get to there could be miscarriages of justice you have to ask how much is involved [???]
EH brings up a 24 Jan 2020 doc from Peters and Peters which says you and Tom Cooper want to take "potshots" at Seema Misra. Any recollection of this?
TP I don't this doc appeared late in my bundle – it's a meeting between barristers. I'd love to have TC in the room here but neither of us would be looking undermine anything determined as a result of the trials. I don't know where that comes from, frankly.
EH [he quotes a Rod Williams doc but he's not putting them up on screen so it's hard to work out what's going on] did you recognise the you see your lawyers as interchangeable tools for optics?
TP is this an RW note? He doesn't reflect what the board or I think
Sam Stein KC up next for more SPMs
SS you'll recall dealing in 2019 with a Mr Swannell – chair of UKGI – when you get to end 2019 there were discos about settling the GLO. Mr Swannell his recollection is of having had a work with you in June 2019 whereby you thought…
… the settlement might be £100m. Was that what you thought or what you were told it might come to?
TP I'd like to see the papers, I can't recollect
SS we don't have papers – this is just Mr Swannell's recollection
TP all I would say is that whatever…
… discos happened post litigation – the money only comes for one source. government – so that's where the decision was made. The PO could not stand alone from gov so any additional cash requirement would have to come from gov
SS so Mr Swannell's comments suggests a bigger…
.. figure had been discussed
TP can't remember
SS but not saying no
TP exactly
SS takes him to a doc
It is the briefing doc we saw earlier, written by MD and sent to TP as if authored by PV.
SS context for this is that you're the right person for the job, you're gathering information, it's a business in crisis – so when you came into the PO you must have realised…
… that questions about the reliability of H were threatening the entire business. is that fair
TP it was a small number of historic issues and H as an EPOS system which operated in PO branches – this was one of a number of problems
SS but this is about… [takes him to this par]
SS allegations about serious problems with management – can you trust these people? If not that would be the death knell for the business
TP not sure it would be the death knell but I take your point
SS takes him to this par
SS Did you read or ask for this independent audit?
TP I didn't ask for the THE independent audit. I'm not sure where this is going. I'm not sure I could have done
SS why not – are you saying you didn't have the power to ask for it
TP this is about what actions could have been…
… taken. Maybe there was an audit and I could have asked for it and it may have thrown up problems. Swift covered off a lot of the bases – it wasn't perfect – but is there anything big we could have done – I don't know.
SS this is about your responsibility – why did you…
… not ask for that?
TP [isn't having this]
SS what about the review by independent forensic accountants – did you ask for that?
TP I don't know when I saw it
SS so what we've established is that you came in, you got this briefing…
… and you got JS to look at it.
TP yes
SS should you have been more hands on – got IT people in, asked F q's
TP we could maybe have audited the IT, but I tried to get someone to look at a range of issues. If I had seen the scale of the thing that might have been different.
SS you were part-time and your decisions were part-baked – you said it was the same amount of time you'd spend with any business – this is about prosecuting people – should you not have spent more time with these issues
TP doesn't accept
SS in the swift review it says that it is entirely unremarkable that H might cause branch errors – so on hearing this did you not think this is exactly what the JFSA have been saying and resolved to do something about it
TP I took away that JS review was not a green light, but…
… not a red light either. You've picked up on things we might have done differently, but I come back to the point I made earlier was that no matter how unsatisfactory the ultimate determination has facilitated a long terms solution to the problem.
SS finishes. Angela Patrick for more SPMs…
AP I want to go to the follow up to the Swift review provided by Brian Altman in July 2016. In your WS you say that it's likely you would have been briefed on that advice but can't recall what you thought. about it
AP did you see the advice?
TP can't recall
AP but briefed
TP if you say so
AP you say so in your WS
TP okay
AP and you say BA made crits which went beyond the scope of his instructions
AP he reviewed 3 files and looked at 8 case studies – who narrowed his scope
TP can't recall
AP if you had known his scope had been reviewed and you knew he'd been asked to look at all cases and he only analysed 3 – would that have caused you a concerne
TP I noted this in retrospect
AP was it not a problem – JS said ALL cases should be reviewed and BA did 3. Was that not a red flag for you?
TP at the time his advice did seem relatively reassuring
AP which you didn't read
TP can't remember
AP takes him to BA QC advice on Jo Hamilton case (JH is sitting next to AP)
AP this is quite serious criticism isn't it?
TP it's hard for me to comment on this
AP were you briefed on this at the time
TP can't tell you if I saw it and to opine on it I'd have to look at it again
AP can you remember if you were briefed about any serious matters which should be referred to the CCRC
TP can't remember
AP what about advice re duties of a prosecutor
TP can't remember
AP you knew the board hadn't seen the Swift review
TP yes
AP you were the only person on the board who'd see the Swift Review and BA QC's advice
TP yes
AP this is very serious – about whether the PO had met its duties to those it had convicted
AP you were the only person on the board to assess this – did you not think to look really critically at the advice you were being given.
TP can't tell you
AP you said you thought legal advice you were getting was in good faith – did you not have…
… an obligation to the board or the PO to challenge the advice you were getting.
TP it's hard with speciliast advice
AP but you had a responsibility to consider it carefully
TP I think I did
AP and you don't know if you saw the BA QC advice
TP don't know
AP did you ask to see it
TP can't remember
[Session ends. I'm going for a decompression drink with @rbrooks45 and I'll get a report up later. thanks for…
@rbrooks45 … reading. If you want to start getting my newsletter, please consider a small donation. More info here. Thanks!]
www.postofficescandal.uk/donate/
