CW-F-09 v0.

Private and Confidential

Master Beldam
Registrar of Criminal Appeals
Criminal Appeal Office Your ref: 202001558 B3
Royal Courts of Justice Our ref: 00489/2015
Strand, London WC2A 2LL (and others)

24/11/2020
….
Dear Alix,

CCRC Post Office cases referred to the Court of Appeal – Update

regarding Legal Advice of Simon Clarke of Counsel, dated 15/07/2013

I write further to our previous correspondence regarding this group of CCRC

referrals.

As you know, the Criminal Appeal Office kindly arranged for the CCRC to
observe the proceedings in these cases last week, namely the directions
hearing on 18th November. We therefore noted the issue which was discussed
in Court regarding Counsel’s advice of 15/07/2013 (hereafter ‘the Clarke
advice’).

Having considered the matter here, we thought that it might assist the Court for
us to set out the CCRC’s position to date regarding the Clarke advice. A copy of
the advice was sent by email to the CCRC from
, at 20:37 on Sunday 15th November. The email had been sent to one
of our Case Review Managers and was picked up on the morning of Monday
16th November.

We take the view that the contents of the Clarke advice are of potential
relevance to ongoing CCRC reviews of Post Office cases. For that reason we
have today written to Post Office Limited (‘POL’) - via their criminal law
representatives, Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP - enclosing a statutory notice,
issued under S17 Criminal Appeal Act 1995, formally requiring POL to provide
us with the Clarke Advice. For the avoidance of any doubt, we also consider
that the advice was of potential relevance to Post Office cases which have
already been referred to the Court of Appeal.

We have given careful consideration to the question of whether POL has

previously provided the CCRC with a copy of the Clarke advice. Our current
position is that we do not believe that we have been provided with a copy. We
certainly have not specifically been served with a copy of the advice, but we
cannot entirely rule out that the advice might have been contained within the
many thousands of Post Office documents which have been made available to
the CCRC throughout our review via an online ‘data room’. It is not possible for
us to be certain about that without conducting a comprehensive audit of all of
the case materials which were available in the data room. We do not propose to
conduct such an audit as matters stand, but we would of course do so if the
Court of Appeal were to request it.

In view of the fact that the parties to the appeal of R v Hamilton and others are
already aware of the Clarke advice, the CCRC does not at present intend to
comment upon any potential effect that the advice might have had upon Post
Office cases which have already been referred for appeal. However, if the Court
wishes to receive CCRC comments in that regard, then we of course stand
ready to assist.

One other point which I should mention in this letter is that, as the Court will be
aware, the Metropolitan Police Service is currently conducting a criminal
investigation into allegations of perjury and perverting the course of justice in
respect of particular expert witnesses, one of whom is the subject of the Clarke
advice. We understand that the parties may wish to consider whether the Clarke
advice – either in whole or in part - ought to be disclosed to the MPS
investigation team. You may already have that in hand.

I have not at this stage copied this letter to the other parties to the appeals in R
v Hamilton and others, although they have been informed that we are liaising
with you on this matter. We have no objection to this letter being shared with the
other parties if you think it to be appropriate.

Please let me know if you have queries about any of the above. I am more than
happy to discuss.

Yours sincerely,

Sally Berlin
Director of Casework Operations
Criminal Cases Review Commission