just so many lives, which wasjust virtuous to see absent on the 9th of december at the altman consultation. but the post office in paragraph 65 and 66 claims that the horizon risks advice note, drafted by dickinson in august, never got to the board, that there was no evidence that it got to there was no evidence that it got to the board, that there was no evidence that it was shared with the board, or summarised with the board. and then they say this, quotation, this may explain, quotation, why the post office appears not to have focused on the real risk of convictions being overturned and claims for malicious prosecution at an earlier stage. there is evidence, but they haven't referred to it. the evidence that showed that the lawyers were telling

paula vinyl is not to do anything at all that might promote proactive criminal disclosure. the e—mails that the post office have not referred to the 2nd of september e—mails that you flemington formatted to her said this, they were advising miss venells not to conduct a lessons learned review. and she read that advice and she understood it and the reason why andrew parsons was advising her not to conduct a lessons learned review into the second site handling and you'll know from the 2nd ofjuly

press briefing to miss vennells and the board were aware that gareth jenkins had given evidence against seema misra, that is plain from the 2nd ofjuly press briefing in relation to second site, which also averted to the threat of criminal convictions being overturned. let's go back to the 2nd of september and in that 2nd of september e—mail, mr parsons said this, "if this review does need to take place at all, then it should be deferred for six to 12 months so as to first allow second site to be managed out on the mediation scheme to be completed. should the review reveal any

concerns about horizon or branch accounting processes, than the post office may be obliged under criminal procedure rules to proactively pass this information to sub—postmaster is involved in criminal prosecutions. both ongoing and historic. in particular, recommendations for change could be interpreted as highlighting historic problems that would need to be disclosed. " paula vennells was aware of the risk of convictions being overturned and consequential claims for malicious prosecution. because of that briefing and because of that e—mail and because of her earlier acquired knowledge about the second site interim report which welded seema misra and gareth jenkins together, you will find no reference of those e—mails, or her

response. my response is telling. "this is clear to me, i appreciate you spending time to provide the advice. i suspect you know the timing of this is helpful. can we speak first thing please? there timing of this is helpful. can we speakfirst thing please? there is no record of what paula vennells discussed with him other lessons learned review, like so many others, never happen. this is clear to me that timing is helpful? in other words, i understand, that timing is helpful? in other words, iunderstand, i that timing is helpful? in other words, i understand, i get what you are saying what you are not writing, we won't go there. almost identical wording or code to ms perkins replied to the unsafe witness

e—mail. all clear and helpful. the timing of this is helpful mayjust be a coincidence, but if paula vennells had been told about roderick williams' knowledge that he acquired that day about the mounting concerns, the abject failure of the post office, to instruct gareth jenkins properly, that would make perfect sense. but, of course, what is undeniable is that those e—mails reflecting the view occurred one week of the consultation. should the review reveal any concerns about horizon or branch accounting processes, the post office may be obliged under criminal procedure rules to proactively pass this information to suppose masters. both ongoing and historic. why did the

tendrils of the post office civil lawyers infiltrate, entwine, clench, even, we say, suffocate the criminal disclosure process? why was mr altman to be walked through the civil implications of disclosure by womble von dickinson. why were cartwright king to be kept apprised of civil claims? so many unanswered questions. but i now go to paragraph 209 of the post office written submissions where we are talking about the engagement with the cc rc. and that paragraph 209, the post office says this... subsequent letters to the cc rc were drafted by womble von dickinson, including a holding response on the 24th ofjuly and the substantive response on the 26th ofjuly setting out the

proposed course of action, brian altman's review, the safety of the convictions and when cases are identified, where there may be issues over the safety to determine the proper approach to be taken. you know that they dispense with the issues over the safety. you know, because the post office tells you in its next line, neither of these drafts refer to any issue with garethjenkins. there is no evidence, the post office says, that this was at the request of the post office rather than at the instigation of womble von dickinson. this is desperate stuff, it is reasonable, playing the limits of the evidence. there is no evidence this was done at the request of the post office, rather than at the

instigation of womble von dickinson. it is inconceivable that the executive would not have been apprised. and the post office, a public corporation that inflicted misery on thousands during this protracted scandal, this country's most extensive and prolonged series of miscarriages ofjustice is acting like a teenage defendant charged with twok. there is no evidence. of course there was, it didn't want the jenkins disaster to emerge, it didn't want thejenkins jenkins disaster to emerge, it didn't want the jenkins disaster to come out. and there's letters to the cc lcr and there's letters to the cc lcr embodiment. you flemington, the head of legal articulated it well when he said, "we need to give off the signals that we are proactive doing all the right things to keep the attorney general and the cc rc

calm. hopefully if they see that, they may leave us to it for the moment". and so they brought in mr altman. may ijust check with moment". and so they brought in mr altman. may i just check with you about time because we started a little bit late?— about time because we started a little bit late? you can have until 10.45, which _ little bit late? you can have until 10.45, which gives _ little bit late? you can have until 10.45, which gives you _ little bit late? you can have until 10.45, which gives you a - little bit late? you can have until. 10.45, which gives you a generous hour~ _ 10.45, which gives you a generous hour~ i _ 10.45, which gives you a generous hour. ., , 10.45, which gives you a generous hour. . , ., 10.45, which gives you a generous hour. . , . ., , hour. i am very grateful. it was once wrote _ hour. i am very grateful. it was once wrote that _ hour. i am very grateful. it was once wrote that law _ hour. i am very grateful. it was once wrote that law is - hour. i am very grateful. it was once wrote that law is best - hour. i am very grateful. it was - once wrote that law is best explain, interpreted and applied by those whose interests and abilities lie in averting, confounding and alluding them. it is a savage verdict on the profession of law, but it has an uncomfortable resonance in this inquiry. how was it that a card professionals, skilled and one eminent, all failed, also they said, to discern an invincible avenue of

appealfor to discern an invincible avenue of appeal for seema to discern an invincible avenue of appealfor seema misra? it takes extraordinary individually or is it this ingenuity to deny seema misra the ammunition to clear her name from 2013 onwards, by not disclosing to her that the credibility of the man who had given the expert evidence against her was, in your words, shot. hers was a unique case, it was against her alone that gareth jenkins had given oral evidence. and when that devastating document the clerk advice was disclosed in november 20 20,11 clerk advice was disclosed in november 20 20, 11 months had passed since the horizon judgment and settlement of the proceedings. is that a clue that might help explain the long suppression of that document? garethjenkins lurked in the twilight of those civil

proceedings, a ventriloquist the doctor wording, proceedings, a ventriloquist the doctorwording, mr proceedings, a ventriloquist the doctor wording, mr parker and perhaps many others had he not. but this was not disclosed in the horizon disclosure trial. i return to seema misra, how can one begin to justify this protracted group error that denied seema misra the precious prospect of securing justice in the nearly eight years following the clerk advice until the ruling of the court of appeal in hamilton? the most deluded people, as mr warmington pointed out at the end of his witness statement, choose to disregard what they already know. how much knowledge, skill and practical expertise in the application of the law one would

have to compartmentalise, ignore, forget or overlook to commit such a collective catastrophic failure of judgment. think of the people in that room on the 9th of september 2013. the combined experience of that room was vast, yet no one spotted the obvious duty of disclosure that would have speedily quashed seema misra's conviction. it was