 |
| Paul Marshall |
"In proceedings to which I am not a party, in the course of a hearing at which I was not present, in the course of a hearing of which I was given no notice that any issue in connection with my conduct was to be raised... The first notice of which was given to me 4 days after the order was made, where the document founding criticism of my conduct by the court was provided to me 11 days after the hearing, and then only upon my specific request."
"relied upon in many of the prosecutions [of Subpostmasters] had failed in many cases to disclose information he was well aware of that Horizon had bugs and errors in it."
This goes to the heart of the Post Office scandal, because in Feb 2015 (nearly two years later), the then chief executive of the Post Office, Paula Vennells, told a parliamentary inquiry:
"If there had been any miscarriages of justice, it would have been really important to me and the Post Office that we surfaced those."
As a result of what was said about the Clarke advice in court on 18 November, Lord Arbuthnot told the government it was clear the Post Office had "lied" to parliament in 2015, and the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, told me it was likely a "smoking gun".
Shortly after the existence of the Clarke advice was made public, Ms Vennells announced she was resigning from her job chairing an NHS Trust.
Nonetheless, the judges took a dim view of the document's disclosure outside Court of Appeal proceedings, and began the process of considering contempt charges against Mr Marshall and Ms Page.
Open justice?
On 26 November I applied to the court to be supplied the Clarke advice on the basis that it was of significant public interest.
On 3 December, my application was refused. Nearly three weeks later I am still waiting for the approved ruling which explains why.
In his letter of 15 December Paul Marshall tells the Court of Appeal he feels "inhibited from continuing fearlessly to represent my clients before this court."
I am publishing a redacted version of the letter below. Acting out of an abundance of caution, I am trying to measure the public interest against the Court of Appeal's unwillingness to allow the Clarke advice and its contents to be made public. I hope, by removing references to what the Clarke advice contains beyond that which is already in the public domain, I have struck the right balance.
More importantly, I hope the redacted elements do not detract from the power of Mr Marshall's argument. Something has gone terribly wrong when a barrister feels unable to represent his clients in one of the highest courts in the land.
If you can't see the letter embedded below, click on the link. You may need to sign up to Scrib'd to read it, which is free.
Earlier this week I told Mr Marshall of my intention to publish his letter and asked if he had anything to say about it. He declined to comment, other than to ask me to make clear that I had not received the letter I am publishing from him."that should not... be taken as an acceptance of anything said in Mr Marshall’s letter".
On 18 November, Mr Altman said the Post Office only brought their knowledge of the leaking of the Clarke advice to the court:
"because we regard it as our professional duty to ds so. We also make it clear that the complaint is about the alleged acts of a lawyer or lawyers acting for three of the appellants, not the appellants themselves."
*****************
If you are able to give £20 or more you will be added to the secret email list. This alerts you to upcoming developments on this scandal before they are made public, as well as links to articles and stories posted here on this blog or elsewhere.