A law firm partner was responsible for an 'avoid disclosure' message for which a trainee was previously blamed, the Post Office Inquiry heard yesterday.
Andrew Parsons of transatlantic firm Womble Bond Dickinson, which was acting for the Post Office, was asked to advise on a draft email written by trainee Amy Prime on whether to hand over guidelines for prosecutions.
Prime’s email to the Post Office litigation team, revealed at the inquiry in April, said: ‘For now, we’ll do what we can to avoid disclosure of these guidelines and try to do so in a way that looks legitimate. However, we are ultimately withholding a key document and this may attract some criticism from [claimants’ firm] Freeths. If you disagree with this approach do let me know.’
But it emerged yesterday that Prime had never included this section in her initial draft: it had been inserted by Parsons.
In his written statement to the inquiry, Parsons said: ‘Regrettably, this email is worded very poorly. Whilst, as I have said, I do not recall this email, my firm’s records show that Amy had sent a draft for my approval earlier that day which did not contain this final paragraph.’
Parsons insisted he had been right to insert the paragraph and that it was ‘legitimate’ for the Post Office (POL) to withhold these particular documents.
But the inquiry saw other attempts by Parsons to prevent the disclosure of pieces of information. When criminal law advisers raised concerns that convictions of sub-postmasters might be unsafe due to a tainted prosecution witness, Parsons was recorded in notes from a meeting saying that 'if it’s not minuted it’s not in the public domain and therefore not disclosable… if it’s produced it’s available for disclosure… if not minuted then technically it’s not.’
When asked to advise on whether to disclose issues about the Horizon IT system to the Post Office’s insurers, Parsons had written: ‘The risk of notification is that it would look bad for POL if it ever became public knowledge that POL had notified its insurer… to reduce the risk it is recommended that rather than sending a formal written notification, [Post Office] verbally notifies them so as not to leave a paper trail.’
Parsons told the inquiry that he had been misrepresented in what he said to the meeting about disclosure. He repeatedly stated that he did not advise Post Office not to keep minutes of meetings.
A spokesperson for the firm said: 'The firm has great sympathy for all those affected by the issues being investigated by the Horizon Public Inquiry and recognises the very real personal impact these have had on sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. Under the terms of the Inquiry, we are unable to comment further but continue to engage fully in that process.'
The inquiry continues.
