Interesting chap was Mr McCausland. I got the impression that he missed a trick with former Post Office General counsel Susan Crichton. McCausland was clearly a fair but macho director who needed people to make their case well in a business bearpit (see his stuff about advising Paula Vennells that Crichton needed to “get over it”).

Could personality types have stopped crucial information about the Post Office scandal reaching the Post Office board?

Read more here, in Asleep at the Neil, or skip ahead to my considered thought below, which is…

No

No. Crichton had sight of the Clarke Advice, McCausland didn’t. What steps did Crichton take to get the Clarke Advice into the hands of the Post Office board?

Too few, my friends, too few.

She managed to get very stressed and resign over the affair, taking the payoff, signing an NDA and keeping silent until she was forced to appear before the Inquiry, where she said as little as possible.

Obviously everyone has to protect their own interests, and not everyone has the capacity to raise their hand when they know something has gone seriously wrong, but still…

… Crichton knew. She was the first person at the Post Office to handle Clarke Advice.

McCausland’s evidence was useful in that it should help the Metropolitan Police work out how and where to recommend charges.

Essentially everyone who had sight of the Clarke Advice and failed to do anything about it (send it to the police, CCRC, media) surely conspired to pervert the course of justice?

I know a lot of lawyers read this email – please get in touch if you think I am being harsh or have just got this plain wrong. I would be delighted to quote your responses. Please let me know if you are happy for me to append your name to what you say, or if you would prefer to be anonymous.

I still don’t know whether I’m going to go in for the final day tomorrow. Sir Wyn Williams (chair of the Inquiry) is, so I feel I should.

Very best

Nick