I am not at all a litigator. Just how bad is advice to a client to suppress documents that should have been disclosed. Obviously their reputation with the public will be in the toilet but is it struck off bad? Go to jail bad?
Meh, suggesting we delay disclosure of a damaging document as long as possible? Seems pretty obvious and sensible to me. Assuming of course this was a civil claim, I would hope and expect criminal matters are different.
If you think a great strategy is to turn over all damaging documents to the other side as soon as you possibly can, litigation may not be for you.
I kinda disagree, and I think this case shows just how horribly, expensively wrong it can be to hide the bad stuff until it becomes so toxic that you have 500 people who would have taken a grand an and apology demanding a 60 million pot of cash
surely you would only not not promptly disclose a disclosable document if you were hoping to get away with never disclosing it? otherwise you’re just letting the pustule pus bag grow and grow?
bullace, I dont know enough about the scenario here, but many claims settle before disclosure, in those circumstances you may try to avoid disclosing damaging documents before settlement discussions if possible, although taking care not to deny their existence or to say anything that you know those documents disprove.
It just looks awful to the point of being criminal. And it may be criminal. There is an innocent explanation about not wanting to disclose a damaging document too early before there was an obligation to do so but it is difficult to assert that with this wording and it won’t even be apparent to most lawyers - only to litigators
I don’t know much either but the fundamental dispute was binary - is the computer system fvcking up or is the postmaster/mistress dishonest? It’s not like a commercial dispute where there’s a settlement to be agreed that’s palatable to both sides.
The news story doesn’t say whether there had been an order for disclosure or any disclosure reports filed.
I’m with Warren that, at pre-disclosure stage, you generally do what you can to avoid having to give up documents which are incriminating, and you try to do it in a way which makes it look like you aren’t nervous about disclosure.
What you don’t do is (a) lie about the facts, if you have material which shows the facts (even if you don’t need to disclose the document yet), (b) destroy material which may be relevant, (c) sign false disclosure statements, or (d) refuse to disclose material in line with the disclosure order.
This was all pre-action - the proceedings were issued in 2016. That doesn't make it right, but they haven't (at this stage) knowingly signed a false disclosure statement, or statement of truth.
They might have done that later (which would be an offence), but we haven't got to that evidence yet.
There might also be breaches of the Code, if they knowingly misled the other side about the documents, or the facts, but as above, this is only the internal advice; we don't know yet how this interacted with what was said publicly, or to the other side.
It's far more likely that any criminal conduct, or serious breaches of the Code occurred later. Given what we now know WBD and PO all knew as early as this, it is difficult to see how pleadings, statements of truth, disclosure statements and evidence all could have been properly given in the High Court claims without there being potential contempt, perjury, conspiracy, or actually perverting the course of justice, plus multiple breaches of the Code.
SRA and SDT however (not to mention CPS) are not going to make decisions on sanctions until after the Inquiry reports and they have findings of fact that they can bank.
6
5
Trainee/NQ, esp if from a minority ethnic group- struck off, with hefty adverse costs award
Partner- no action required.
2
5
Meh, suggesting we delay disclosure of a damaging document as long as possible? Seems pretty obvious and sensible to me. Assuming of course this was a civil claim, I would hope and expect criminal matters are different.
If you think a great strategy is to turn over all damaging documents to the other side as soon as you possibly can, litigation may not be for you.
0
1
what Warren said, the issue was with the wording, which was atrocious.
0
1
No idea but remember the partner in question as a trainee.
0
2
Everyone involved in the Horizon scandal should be jailed forthwith, pour encourager les autres.
0
2
This is another example of emails having destroyed the profession.
In the olden days this note would have gone out in the post (lol) on letterhead signed with an illegible squiggle in the name of the firm.
The poor NQ would have remained anonymous and innocent.
1
2
It's the wording IMO, suggesting they are knowingly hiding docs for concealed reasons, which is what will be the problem there.
On it's own, it's a mis-step, but as part of a wider context, it's really not ideal...
0
3
It would not have gone in the post...
It would have been discussed in a smoke-filled room after the third sherry.
0
2
Reallllllllly bad. Contempt of court time. CPR 31.23(1) on false disclosure statements.
0
2
Warren19 Apr 24 09:56
If you think a great strategy is to turn over all damaging documents to the other side as soon as you possibly can, litigation may not be for you.
____________________________________________________________________________
I kinda disagree, and I think this case shows just how horribly, expensively wrong it can be to hide the bad stuff until it becomes so toxic that you have 500 people who would have taken a grand an and apology demanding a 60 million pot of cash
0
2
"Reallllllllly bad. Contempt of court time. CPR 31.23(1) on false disclosure statements. "
I thought this was about voluntary disclosure prior to formal disclosure?
0
2
It's the mentality.
0
2
surely you would only not not promptly disclose a disclosable document if you were hoping to get away with never disclosing it? otherwise you’re just letting the pustule pus bag grow and grow?
0
3
All these horrendous lawyers, both external and internal, that acted for the Post Office are all bound together in some ghastly death-wish.
Their employers can't sack any of them, as they will then dob the others in it, but they are now unemployable outside their foetid firms/PO.
Let the SRA and SDT put them all out of their misery by an immediate strike-off.
0
2
bullace, I dont know enough about the scenario here, but many claims settle before disclosure, in those circumstances you may try to avoid disclosing damaging documents before settlement discussions if possible, although taking care not to deny their existence or to say anything that you know those documents disprove.
0
2
It just looks awful to the point of being criminal. And it may be criminal. There is an innocent explanation about not wanting to disclose a damaging document too early before there was an obligation to do so but it is difficult to assert that with this wording and it won’t even be apparent to most lawyers - only to litigators
0
2
I don’t know much either but the fundamental dispute was binary - is the computer system fvcking up or is the postmaster/mistress dishonest? It’s not like a commercial dispute where there’s a settlement to be agreed that’s palatable to both sides.
0
2
the wording is awful, I am not defending that.
2
2
The news story doesn’t say whether there had been an order for disclosure or any disclosure reports filed.
I’m with Warren that, at pre-disclosure stage, you generally do what you can to avoid having to give up documents which are incriminating, and you try to do it in a way which makes it look like you aren’t nervous about disclosure.
What you don’t do is (a) lie about the facts, if you have material which shows the facts (even if you don’t need to disclose the document yet), (b) destroy material which may be relevant, (c) sign false disclosure statements, or (d) refuse to disclose material in line with the disclosure order.
It’s not clear what happened here.
2
2
This was all pre-action - the proceedings were issued in 2016. That doesn't make it right, but they haven't (at this stage) knowingly signed a false disclosure statement, or statement of truth.
They might have done that later (which would be an offence), but we haven't got to that evidence yet.
There might also be breaches of the Code, if they knowingly misled the other side about the documents, or the facts, but as above, this is only the internal advice; we don't know yet how this interacted with what was said publicly, or to the other side.
It's far more likely that any criminal conduct, or serious breaches of the Code occurred later. Given what we now know WBD and PO all knew as early as this, it is difficult to see how pleadings, statements of truth, disclosure statements and evidence all could have been properly given in the High Court claims without there being potential contempt, perjury, conspiracy, or actually perverting the course of justice, plus multiple breaches of the Code.
SRA and SDT however (not to mention CPS) are not going to make decisions on sanctions until after the Inquiry reports and they have findings of fact that they can bank.
0
2
Warren’s general approach to victims in life displayed above in full
0
2
I took the question literally, i.e. implying that discovery had already happened.
0
2
do the rules of disclosure remain the same regardless of the fact that the post office was the original prosecutor?
0
1
A depressing statement of actual law by Thereisnotri. Where are the RoF moderators when you need them to clamp down on this stuff?
0
1
Sorry to lower the tone - couldn't help myself ...
Join the discussion