On Wed 8 May, I mentioned (in parentheses) during my live-tweets of Brian Altman KC’s evidence:

“This provokes a conference in BA’s chambers and a letter from the new GC Jane McLoed (who I understand might be resisting the request she give evidence to the inquiry and given she lives abroad, cannot be compelled to do so) telling the CCRC essentially to do one.”

I had heard the rumour that day, and hoped that by mentioning it on twitter en passant, it might get some pick up. It didn’t, so I mentioned it again in a stand-alone tweet more than a week later, as I was preparing to go on stage in Chelmsford:

I am hearing rumours that former Post Office General Counsel Jane McLoed is refusing to attend the #PostOfficeInquiry and can't be compelled as she is currently abroad.

She was due to have appeared on 4 June. (https://t.co/JABmrL8DRU) she is no longer on the schedule.

McLoed…

— Nick Wallis (@nickwallis) May 16, 2024

… once more misspelling MacLeod. This did get some pick-up, as you can see from the re-tweets.

Yesterday, during the questioning of Alisdair Cameron (the Post Office’s off-sick finance director), Jason Beer KC confirmed that, as things stand, Jane MacLeod is refusing to give evidence to the Inquiry.

JB: Jane MacLeod told you that the reason why Jonathan Swift’s review was not being shared with you was because of privilege?
AC: That’s my recollection but, you know, when you hear from her, if she disagrees…
JB: We’re not going to hear from her.
AC: Okay.
JB: She lives abroad…
AC: Okay.
JB: …and won’t cooperate.
AC: Wow.

Wow, indeed

On 28 March, Ms MacLeod (an Australian national) was approached by the BBC about her involvement in the Post Office’s secret Project Bramble report. The BBC reported:

Jane MacLeod, the Post Office’s general counsel at the time of the case, said she supported the ongoing public inquiry into the Post Office scandal and was assisting it. She added that while the inquiry was ongoing, “I do not think it is appropriate to comment at this time”.

As late as 9 May, MacLeod was down on the Inquiry website as giving evidence on 4 June. So what changed? MacLeod’s predecessor, Chris Aujard, divested himself of several FNZ directorships the day before he gave evidence to the Inquiry. FNZ is an antipodean wealth management company.

It is possible (and I had this possibility confirmed to me as theoretically legitimate by a senior management accountant at a large City firm) that Aujard was asked/decided to resign his directorships in case he said anything during his evidence which could make him a liability or notifiable insurance risk to the firms of the boards he sat on.

MacLeod’s LinkedIn profile states that she has been on a career break since 2023. Interestingly, she followed Chris Aujard to FNZ two years after leaving the Post Office, (in 2019, two months after the **** really hit the fan with the handing down of the Common Issues judgment in the Bates v Post Office group litigation).

Ms MacLeod’s refusal to attend the Inquiry (whether remotely or in person) has the effect of obstructing justice, which is not a good look for a senior lawyer. I hope the relevant regulatory bodies investigate MacLeod’s refusal to cooperate and warn her of the consequences before this Inquiry is over. Given their track record, I suspect they won’t.

---

The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive irregular, but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.

---