The other story to come out of today’s evidence (21 May 2024) took us away from inability of Alwen Lyons to see herself as anything other than a helpful facilitator of Post Office business and Second Sight’s investigation into the Post Office business. 

It concerns a couple of emails sent by Post Office Head of Legal Hugh Flemington.

The first, in 2012, he sent to Paula Vennells. “We have a civil (not criminal) case in court tomorrow”, writes Flemington “where we have already had an admission from the Subpostmaster that she owed us [£10,4000].”

The Subpostmaster was a Mrs Etheridge who ran the Gurnos Post Office in Merthyr Tydfil. Flemington tells Vennells:

“Tomorrow sees us try to put a charge on her property so if she ever sells it we (hopefully) get paid back out of the sale proceeds. Her husband has seen the press coverage on Horizon, is now saying he will contact his MP, Justice for Subpostmasters etc. and is blaming Horizon for his wife’s debt (amongst other alleged causes).”

The admission appears to have been made under duress. Not that Flemington cared. According to Fleminton, Mrs Etheridge: 

“started out as an SPM in 2008 and seems to have had balancing issues from the start. She closed temporarily in 2010 due to ill health and finally for good in 2011. We never terminated her because of her illness. She resigned in June 2011 but it seems by November 2011 we had noticed losses (10k). The husband then makes various allegations…. We issued court proceedings for the whole debt in Feb this year and the SPM admitted the debt!”

I wonder why. Maybe they took legal advice and were told that if they took on the Post Office they’d end up bankrupt like that Lee Castleton fella. Flemington continues:

“We then took the steps to place a charging order on the property to try to ensure we actually see the money if they ever sell their property.”

Does Flemington have the slightest interest in the concerns raised by the Subpostmaster and her husband? Of course not. He’s got his admission. But there’s a fly in the ointment.

“The husband will attend the hearing tomorrow with the SPM and try to get an adjournment of the case – probably on the grounds of the current forensic investigation we have initiated.”

Bandwagonesque, again

Flemington wants to resist an adjournment on the grounds that if they don’t it “will just encourage more debtors to play the system and use these tactics to slow down our ability to recover. They will all jump on the band wagon.”

Aware there are potential reputational downsides to acting like bully-boy c***s, Flemington tells Vennells: “We will however need to manage the PR side.”

Five days later, Flemington returns with some good news:

“The hearing went ahead last Friday and we were granted a “Final Charging Order” over Mrs Etheridge’s (the ex SPM) house.”

Trebles all round! “Apparently”, writes Flemington “Mr Etheridge turned up to Court with a bundle of papers, including correspondence with his MP.”

Didn’t do him any good, though, did it? Vennells seeks clarity on Flemington’s legalese:

“Just so I’m clear,” she asks, “does this mean we got the outcome you wanted, ie no adjournment and future repayment of the debt?”

Flemington replies: “Yes we got the outcome we wanted”

And because the Post Office will often jettison its professed mania for protecting public money if there’s the slightest whiff of reputational damage in the media, Flemington gives Vennells the win-win:

“and we have the flexibility not to press it further etc if we ever want to be “caring” etc.”

These Post Office folk really are great guys.

Give Off The Signals

The other email concerned a letter sent by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Post Office in the light of Second Sight’s Interim Report on 15 July 2013. It is a very serious letter raising the prospect of an investigation into possible miscarriages of justice. The letter itself was not shown to the Inquiry today but in her covering email sending it on Susan Crichton notes: “There is a reference to the Attorney General.”

Crichton is concerned at this potential escalation of the issues raised in the Clarke Advice, which she has seen, but not yet told the board about.

“In what circumstances could the Attorney General get involved?” she asks.

A response to Crichton’s questions comes from Martin Smith at Cartwright King. It is cc’d to Hugh Flemington.

“The Attorney General has no role in the referral of cases to the Court of Appeal. The Attorney General can, however, set up an inquiry to see if there has been a miscarriage of justice. If he determines that there has, he can refer cases to the CCRC.”

Caring Hugh responds:

“Presumably we need to give off the signals that we are proactive, doing all the right things re writing to people to keep the AG and CCRC calm. Hopefully if they see that they may leave us to it for the moment.”

Pretending to be proactive to the AG and the CCRC? Presenting the impression of activity without actually doing much? I do wonder just how close that comes to being evidence of an intention to pervert the course of justice. 

To read about Alwyn Lyons evidence to the Inquiry today, please click here for the blog post, or click here for the link to the live-tweets and documentary evidence.

---

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.