Potential appellants, individuals that have been prosecuted.

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

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

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

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

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