Ignore: Difference between revisions

Line 49:

{{quote|{{image|Muppet Bond Dickinson|png|Am I a man, or am I a muppet?}}

}}

This is a ''horrorshow'' of an email to get from anyone, let alone your own external counsel. It is staggering that anyone at Bond Dickinson could have thought this wise to send — a partner apparently approved it, so we can only suppose they thought the cloak of [[litigation privilege]] would ensure it stayed private until the end of eternity — but note Williams’ classic response, as encapsulated in his examination by Jason Beer KC:

{{quote|

{{capsital|Jason Beer}}: They made a proposal that was essentially summarising threefold: firstly, that the Post Office should, through its lawyers, suppress disclosure for as long as possible; do you agree?

{{capsital|Williams}}: That’s what it says, yes.

{{capsital|Beer}}: Secondly, that suppression should be done in a way that looked legitimate to the outside world, agree?

{{capsital|Williams}}: Yeah, that’s what it says, yes.

{{capsital|Beer}}: And, third, that you were to say if you disagreed that disclosure should be suppressed but, at the same time, be made to look legitimate to the outside world?

{{capsital|Williams}}: Quite – I don’t think it quite says that but that’s certainly the gist, yes.

{{capsital|Beer}}: There’s no record of you saying that you did disagree, saying, “Don’t do that, it’s wrong”, is there?

{{capsital|Williams}}: There’s no record – as I say, I think say this in my statement, I did not recall – I have no recollection of this email, which is regrettable, because I was –

{{capsital|Beer}}: Are you used to getting emails from other lawyers saying, “We should suppress documents”?

{{capsital|Williams}}: I’m used to getting a lot of emails. As I say, I don’t recall reading this at the time. It was clearly sent to me, it was clearly addressed to me but I do not recall and the reason why I mention the date is, when the Inquiry provided this to me, I’ll be frank and say it’s a concerning email. I –

{{capsital|Beer}}: You searched your emails like frantic, no doubt, didn’t you?

{{capsital|Williams}}: I did and I couldn’t find anything around it until the dates were swapped and I looked around October and I did, indeed, receive it. It was in my inbox.

{{capsital|Beer}}: And you didn’t reply to it?

{{capsital|Williams}}: No, I –

{{capsital|Beer}}: You didn’t say, “no, don’t do that”?

{{capsital|Williams}}: I did not reply to it but I do not recall reading it carefully. I don’t recall it in any size, shape or colour.

{{capsital|Beer}}: Your actions are the more important thing rather than your present recollection?

{{capsital|Williams}}: That’s true, mm-hm.

{{capsital|Beer}}: What we can say is that you didn’t reply –

{{capsital|Williams}}: Correct.

{{capsital|Beer}}: – saying “No, lawyers shouldn’t suppress relevant documents, they shouldn’t do so in a way that is made to look legitimate, and they certainly shouldn’t do so because the content of the document is concerning and might be used by our opponent to make a good argument against us”. You didn’t do any of those things, did you?

{{capsital|Williams}}: No, it’s – I certainly didn’t reply in writing. I – as I say, I don’t recall. I don’t recall calling, either, which is the invitation there. I don’t recall any action on this so, no, I did not take any action in response to this.

}}

''As long as you do not acknowledge that email at all you have [[plausible deniability]]''.

*[[Financialisation]]

Ignore: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search