Dear Post Office Limited,

When all the appellants' barristers had finished, Brian Altman, the Post Office QC, said he wished to make a brief response. He said:
- the Post Office accepted both Mr Justice Fraser's judgments
- it was not disputing any element of Mr Justice Fraser's judgments
- the CCRC have conducted the investigations in these cases leading to the referrals the CCRC has made
- the Post Office has not sought to go behind those investigations to do its own (this could undermine Fraser J which PO has no desire to do)
- the Post Office has embarked on a post-conviction disclosure exercise almost unprecedented in size which has allowed the appellants to make the arguments they are making.
- we as counsel have placed before the court points which we believe are relevant to the issue of second category abuse, but given the very clear public interest, the determination whether or not these prosecutions amount to an affront to the public conscience is a matter for this court to judge. Justice Fraser found"The NFSP is not an organisation independent of the Post Office, in the sense that the word “independent” is usually understood in the English language. It is not only dependent upon the Post Office for its funding, but that funding is subject to stringent and detailed conditions that enable the Post Office to restrict the activities of the NFSP. The Post Office effectively controls the NFSP." Is the QC saying POL accept the NFSP is not independent?

Yours faithfully,

john o'sullivan

Dear Information Rights Team,
Thank you for a reply.The issue of the NFSP's independance is an important one.They claim to represent 8000 spm but in the recent NED hustings just 82 people were on-line.SPM need to know there interests can be looked after,Callum has made great improvements but the way the NFSP is funded is still an issue.Clearly Callum cant answer this question-who can if not you?Regards John O'Sullivan

Yours sincerely,

john o'sullivan