Potential appellants, individuals that have been prosecuted.

Tim Bush made this Freedom of Information request to Post Office Limited Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Post Office Limited should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Post Office Limited,

I request information including advice in whatever form, including legal advice, relating to Nick Read’s statements to the Commons Business and Trade Select Committee hearing, where he said he is frustrated by the lack of former subpostmasters, prosecuted using Horizon data, that have come forward to either the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) or directly to the Court of Appeal, to have their convictions reviewed for potential appeal.

This information includes the “specific piece of work” referred to in his evidence to the Select Committee which was:-

"We have been doing a specific piece of work to identify [whether] there are any potential appellants, individuals that have been prosecuted. We say to them, 'Come forward, we will not oppose you'."

I also ask whether that “piece of work” - which will not oppose appeals has been supplied to 1) Sir Wyn’s official enquiry, 2) the CCRC and if not why not.

Yours faithfully,

Tim Bush

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

Our ref: FOI2023/00356

Dear Tim Bush,

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 21st
June. Your request is being considered under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

The Act requires that a response must be given promptly, and in any event
within 20 working days. We will therefore reply at the latest by 20th
July.

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Regards,

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street,

London,

EC2V 7ER

Dear [email address],

As per the above, you have not responded as required by law. That clearly is a matter for the Information Commissioner.

I also note that the Statutory Inquiry was not supplied information either and has set out clearly what sanctions that now carries.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Bush

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Tim Bush,

Thank you for your patience whilst we have been handling your information
request. Please find this response attached.

With kind regards,

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street,

London,

EC2V 7ER

Dear Post Office Limited,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Post Office Limited's handling of my FOI request 'Potential appellants, individuals that have been prosecuted.'.

I request an internal review. I reject the assertion that the request needs to be clarified.

Your response says:-

“Unfortunately, your request is very broad and covers an enormous amount of information. Gathering it together would therefore involve a significant cost and diversion of resources from the organisation's other work.”

However my request is not “very broad” as it draws from the precise words of the CEO of POL to the Parliamentary Committee thus:-

“This information includes the "specific piece of work" referred to in his evidence to the Select Committee which was:-

"We have been doing a specific piece of work to identify [whether] there are any potential appellants, individuals that have been prosecuted. We say to them, 'Come forward, we will not oppose you'."”

Several points.

1. By basic use of the English language, “a specific piece of work” isn’t very broad, it’s very precise.

2. As the work has already been done, then there cannot be a cost in retrieving that “piece of work”.

3. The “piece of work” is referred to to a Parliamentary Committee. If it doesn’t exist as a “piece of work” then Parliament would appear to have been misled.

4. The CEO’s usage “them” is also specific, not only by basic use, but because it also requests that “them” then do something. POL must therefore know who “them” is as a result of “this specific piece of work”.

Finally, you do answer to my point as to whether this “piece of work” was given to the Statutory Inquiry. I take the lack of an answer as an indication that it hasn’t.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Yours faithfully,

Tim Bush

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

Dear Tim Bush,

Thank you for contacting us with your request for an internal review.

This has been assigned to a caseworker (our ref: IR2023/00434).

If you have any questions, then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards,

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street,

London,

EC2V 7ER

information.rights, Post Office Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Bush,

 

With reference to the above case, we are sorry as although we had hoped to
respond by today, we are still working on the internal review of your
request.  We aim to complete the review within the next few days but if
there is any significant delay, we will contact you with an updated
timescale for response.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Information Rights

 

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

 

100 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7ER

 

[1]postoffice.co.uk

 

[2]Logo, company name Description automatically generated

 

show quoted sections

Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information
about how we do this can be found on our website at
www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy

References

Visible links
1. https://www.postoffice.co.uk/

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

Dear Tim Bush

We apologise, but we are not in a position to respond to your internal
review at this time as we need further time to process the review. We will
however aim to come back to you by 19th September.

Kind Regards

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street,

London,

EC2V 7ER

[1][email address]

Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy, information
about how we do this can be found on our website at
www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

Dear Tim Bush

We are sorry but although we had hoped to respond to your Internal Review
(IR2023/00434) by 19th September, we are still considering it. We will
endeavour to respond to it as soon as possible and in any event by 17th
October.

Kind Regards

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street,

London,

EC2V 7ER

[1][email address]

Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy, information
about how we do this can be found on our website at
www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear [email address],

Please note this request has been delayed and delayed and you have now not delivered by 17th October 2023.

I am drawing inference that the delay may be deliberate to avoid it coming out whilst the Statutory Inquiry is in progress.

It seems to me that there are three possible situations, either:
- you have the information and are deliberately withholding it without cause
- Parliament was misled
- both of the above.

I reiterate that Parliament was told that POL had done a specific piece of work.

You have a week to reply before this is referred to the ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Bush

information.rights, Post Office Limited

Dear Mr Bush,

Thank you for your email earlier.

Although we had hoped to conclude the Internal Review of your request by 17 October 2023, there are still a few areas that we need to review before we can respond.

We anticipate that we will issue a response very soon but if there is a likely to be a significant delay, we will advise you of when we expect to reply.

Kind regards,

Information Rights

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7ER

postoffice.co.uk

show quoted sections

Dear information.rights,

That is a very unsatisfactory response.

You are already 99 days overdue the legal requirement of 20 days.

All I can conclude is that you are struggling because you know you should disclose but don’t want to and can’t construct a credible case for continuing to withhold.

This will be passed immediately to the ICO.

You have said:-

> information is in scope (your reply to me)
> it is a specific piece of work already done (your statement to Parliament)

You have also refused to confirm whether or not information as to the “specific piece of work” has been given to the Statutory Inquiry.

If you are being advised by third party SRO regulated lawyers then presumably both sides are aware of the risk of “fee farming”. i.e. dragging things out to put time on the clock. I trust your sponsor Department and UKFI is aware that would be an issue for the taxpayers who are funding the predicament POL finds itself in.

This exchange is being copied to the Inquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Bush

Dear information.rights,

By law, under all circumstances, Post Office Limited should have responded by now. Matters are now approaching six months in default of the law.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Bush

information.rights@postoffice.co.uk, Post Office Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Tim Bush,

Please find attached the outcome of your Internal Review request. We
apologise for the delay in responding.

Regards,

Data Protection and Information Rights Team

100 Wood Street,

London,

EC2V 7ER