赫伯特·史密斯Freehills

2023年4月27日

2023年4月28日赫伯特·史密斯Freehills:爭論是否建議在關鍵法庭應用赫伯特·史密斯Freehills (HSF)昨日指責的一個“站不住腳”的利益衝突在郵局醜聞繼續作用補償方案。愛德華。亨利KC認為在郵局調查,努力彌補subpostmasters將“失敗”如果城市律師事務所巨頭參與運行的過程同時也代表郵局。然而,郵局的顧問,凱特Gallafent KC,反駁說,一個關鍵的參數是基於一個誤解文檔。調查椅子Wyn威廉姆斯爵士昨日舉行了聽證會更新補償是如何發展的,他表示持續關注的問題。亨利先生的行為subpostmasters由倫敦法律事務所霍奇瓊斯和艾倫,他提交的重點是HSF的角色在一個失敗的正義弗雷澤先生現在臭名昭著的努力回避主持2019年的裏程碑式的集團訴訟。在拒絕上訴法官弗雷澤的拒絕,大法官考爾森說“回避應用程序沒有任何物質”。應用程序的情況下將在調查研究之後。亨利先生將應用程序描述為“不公”的開創性的事件在整個傳奇。他對溫先生說:“郵局知道(刑事案件審查委員會)是騎在地平線的訴訟。這是明顯的去郵局。 If the Horizon litigation had foundered, if it had resulted in a defeat for the claimants or a miserly settlement… you and I, together with all of these other people, would not be here. “But, worse, who can say what would have happened to the CCRC referral [which led to dozens of subpostmaster convictions being overturned]? So, therefore, the Post Office was playing for very, very high stakes indeed by attempting to recuse Mr Justice Fraser.” He said a submission made last October by UK Government Investments (UKGI) – which oversees the government’s 100% shareholding in the Post Office – said HSF was only instructed after the recusal application was made; however, other evidence indicated that this was wrong and actually it advised on the application. He stressed that the UKGI submission had not been corrected and described the recusal issue as “central to the question of misfeasance” at the Post Office. HSF was not “a new broom”, Mr Henry said – it was “part of the problem” and “deeply implicated”. He added: “It was, as it were, an oily rag that tried to tarnish the reputation of the judge.” The written brief authored by Mr Henry, his junior Flora Page and Hodge Jones & Allen explained: “We do not see how HSF can be seen to be impartial in acting for POL in the inquiry while the conduct of its own lawyers will be under examination by the inquiry, in relation to an issue of arguable bad faith, or catastrophic misjudgement. “Meanwhile, HSF (Cerberus like) will continue to wear a third hat investigating and settling compensation claims from those brave litigants who brought the action, which led to the recusal application which the inquiry will be investigating, which HSF advised upon.” He told Sir Wyn yesterday that this placed HSF in “a hopeless conflict” and an “untenable” position. “If that isn’t a conflict and if they cannot see that it is a conflict, then one respectfully submits they are so purblind that it’s even more dangerous.” Mr Henry recommended interim payments to subpostmasters, rather than final settlements, while the truth of what happened was established. Ms Gallafent said the reason the UKGI submissions were not corrected was “for the simple reason that they are based on a contemporaneous document… [which] does not say that HSF was involved in the recusal application”. She went on: “The inference that Mr Henry seeks to draw from it is completely different from what the document itself says.” She laid out a “factual” timeline that said HSF did not advise on making the application. Sir Wyn did not permit the barristers to debate the issue further, except to allow Mr Henry to ask: “If they were not formally instructed, were they, as it were, acting below the parapet?” The written brief also highlighted a “worrying development” that emerged last December “when it was revealed that derisory sums had been agreed with unrepresented victims by HSF, sums that were plainly inadequate, and subject to errors and omissions”. It continued: “That this had been sanctioned on the Post Office’s behalf gives rise to legitimate concerns that very little has been learnt from this tragedy: the dynamics of power and inequality persist, whether consciously exploited or not by the Post Office and its advisers.”