Ref the post above, specifically the witness Andrew Parsons. News starting to filter through of replies from the PO to ongoing questions being asked by the Inquiry. Basically, the PO are pointing fingers at Parsons for a significant number of issues around litigation. As per my post I quoted above, the guy has a lot to answer for BUT… and it’s a big BUT!!! Parsons held a relatively junior position with one of the PO’s external legal teams when he first became involved in 2013.
Yes, he rose to a senior position and was front and centre in driving the PO’s response to litigation but there were countless prosecutions prior to his involvement. There’s a large element of deflection by the PO in pointing fingers elsewhere. There were senior, qualified legal professionals employed by the PO that are equally responsible.
Taken from a statement from the PO.
“Para 236. WBD, the law firm Womble Bond Dickinson, first became involved in advising POL in early 2013 when Andy Parsons was instructed to advise on letters before claim from Postmasters raising concerns about the Horizon system. He was then a 5 years PQE associate at WBD. He advised on the disclosure (or otherwise) of issues with Horizon in letters to Postmasters, despite the fact that he "didn't understand the nature of the error in hardly any detail", and advised on crucial wording in correspondence based on his understanding that it was normal for lawyers to "soften wording". He made "recommendations" to POL on his own initiative without instructions or without the "level of thought" required to understand the impact on disclosure in other matters.
Para 237. He remained POL's main external legal adviser in civil matters to POL until 2019 during which period he played a substantial role in shaping POL's strategy in relation to key responses to the emerging scandal (including the response to SSIR and the ICRMS). He was made a Partner in May 2016 (just weeks after proceedings in the GLO were issued), and thereafter had principal responsibility for the conduct of POL's defence in the GLO, sitting on the Postmaster Litigation Steering Group (PLSG) and attending some meetings of the Board Subcommittee (established in early 2018). This was despite having no previous experience of group litigation. [Andy Parsons] in turn delegated a number of tasks to a colleague, Amy Prime ("APr"), including the instruction of [Brian Altman KC] in relation to the criminal appeals, and liaising with POL to provide background to the pleading in the GLO. At this time APr was less than one year PQE.
Para 238. It was obviously a mistake for POL to rely on such an inexperienced legal adviser in APa, and, in turn, for him in turn to rely on such a junior colleague, in a matter of such significance to POL. Indeed, the absence of any tendering process for appointment as POL's lawyers in the GLO, or even any evidence at its inception there was anything more than a cursory consideration of instructing another firm of solicitors (and in any event no consideration apparently given to instructing a more senior partner), was an obvious error. It is now clear (and ought to have been clear to POL at the time) that [Andy Parsons] had neither the experience nor the judgement to provide POL with the depth of advice that the GLO required. Moreover, his involvement from a very junior stage of his career appears to have led [Andy Parsons] to overidentify with his client in litigation and to lose his ability clearly to assess issues of disclosure, evidence, strategy and costs. As a result, POL was deprived of legal advice which was truly objective.’”
