Thread by @nickwallis

JB takes him to an email from Tom Beezer and reads it out

Rest of the note:

JB then takes LG to his clerk's response

And LG's reply
JB you are coming down in favour recusal, but you don't give a view on prospects of success
LG correct

JB takes him to a WBD attendance note of two separate occasions

JB by now you've substantially reviewed the Common Issues judgment (CIJ)
LG yes

JB is that you saying you agree with the prospects of success
LG not into that sort of detail - think it's an appropriate case for such an application to be made

JB takes him to Duty to Act

JB was this your advice?
LG yes

JB this went to Gideon Coen for you to sign off and he replied you would be busy so he signed it off
LG okay
JB were you saying the PO was under a legal duty to apply for recusal (R)
LG no - I was saying if they didn't make the R app it wouldn't be open to them to make the...

... complaint subsequently
JB so this is not legal duty
LG no - advice firmly expressed
JB so if they didn't apply for R they would not be in breach of duty
LG no
JB it's one thing to say desirable, important or essential - duty is v strong indeed
LG I agree

LG advising them on what I think they ought to do and that's what I'm paid to do
JB you look at consequences not prospects of success
LG I do later
JB yes here under prospects you don't talk about prospects of success - you talk about desirability of the application

LG that may be a difference without a difference - there's more nuance in your question than this write up might deserve

JB you are recorded as saying there is a "serious prospect of success"
LG that was my view
JB LN said there was "reasonable grounds" is there a difference
LG not really

JB did you say JF had done an "unbelievable nonsense"
LG probably yes, that was my view

[JB takes him to an email between LG and LN after the meeting we have just seen the attendance note from]

Reads to the end of the email
JB when you were advising did you understand your clients to have impartial views unaffected by those already instructed
LG yes

JB "I make no comment on that bollox"
LG Er, yes indeed - what I am talking about the presence of both of us - he and I. What seemed to be a nonsense was to have us there separately
JB I'm not sure that's true but not much turns on it [proves it]
LG okay alright. still accurate

JB takes him to LN's reply to (and focuses on the "bollox" issue)

And LG's reply
JB so they wanted you all separate
LG yes they wanted views untrammelled by others
JB but you'd reached your own view on the view of others
LG and then reached my own. would not have encouraged them to make this app if I didn't support it myself

JB so you formed your view based on that of Cav, LN, Gideon Coen etc
LG and my own conclusions
JB in his WS Lord Neuberger said he didn't want to tell the PO board anything that you hadn't said
LG you'll have to ask LN about that - I can't climb into his mind

JB LN was in Argentina throughout this episode
LG he is a workaholic
JB there was a PO board meeting on 18 March 2019 [shows him the minute]

[The board decide how to deal with the conflict of interest]

Then LN joins the board call

Directors' questions

Answer to those questions.
JB LN saying he had no knowledge of LG's knowledge of the case is not consistent with the email traffic we've just seen
LG you'll have to ask him
JB what's your view
LG I can't recall
JB [explains the contradiction]

LG can't help you further - docs will speak for themselves - these minutes aren't very helpful. Sure the emails are accurate
JB says LN was diffident as he hadn't seen the oppo's point - had you?
LG of course not
JB would you not want to

LG no you just need to read the judgment
JB were you not slightly diffident - like LN
LG he's more cautious, prudent and judicial - but I know he felt it was a strong case
JB takes him to email traffic between LN and LG after the board meeting

This is from LN to LG

JB so that's the feedback you got from LN
LG yep and he's unimpressed by the judgment and we should pursue recusal. I told them I thought they would win recusal
JB takes LG to the board meeting he dialled into

Here is LG's dial in

Grabs' advice

... continues...

JB was that all accurate
LG yep
JB was the board keen to recuse
LG didn't get any sense of that one way or another

goes to email exchange between LN to LG
"hope they don't bottle it"

JB takes him to another email
JB why were the clients reluctant to take such a serious step?
LG if they had not been advised to do it they wouldn't
JB so this was a lawyer - led decision -
LG it was their decision ultimately

JB takes him to another email after the application has gone in

JB notes first par in the email above
JB is that a cross-reference to Mr Justice Peter Smith
LG indeed
JB was this becoming personalised
LG [suddenly defensive] what do you mean by that
JB what I've just said
LG what do you mean? between who and whom?
JB you and the judge

LG me and which judge
JB you and the judge you were applying to recuse himself
LG absolutely not - my view was that he'd made a mess of that case and that was LN's view as well
[JB moves to the recusal application. this was dismissed by the judge - we have our final break]

[and we're back]
JB having reviewed the docs the inquiry sent to you, you made a number of crits of JF in the light of his refusal to recuse himself
LG before we go on on p2 of the doc you showed me just before the break - "our" suspicions about JF's "Smith" characteristics...

... there was certainly no personal animus.
JB takes him to an email to LN from LG on the day the application was dismissed

JB sure you hadn't personalised this a bit
LG no "our" view - we are agreed that this is about the calibre of the judgment
JB it's not the judgment - it's the judge - whether the man can actually do the job
LG no it's about the quality of the judgment
JB a number of docs have...

... been identified suggesting there had been an inappropriate relationship between JF and Lord Justice Coulson and inappropriate email traffic between them. You didn't discuss these in your WS
LG didn't think they were relevant but you can put them to me if you want

JB takes him to an email from Andy Parsons

This is after the CoA had rejected the refusal to allow the recusal appeal...

Cav gets in on the conspiracy

Cohen responds

Grabs Investigates and concludes:

JB takes him to LN's response

And the point where LN addresses LG's point 4 and pours water on the conspiracy

JB so is it right re the theory originated from Andy Parsons email which we saw first
LG absolutely
JB and in the end LN poured cold water on it

LG yes and you can't conclude something so serious without the facts and without the facts it would be inappropriate to come to such a conclusion

[this guy is shameless!]

JB takes him to a Jane McLeod question via email

Parsons replies:

JB was this your view?
LG suspect it was - my view was that recusal would best succeed in the CoA

JB takes him to a reply from Jane M

It's forwarded by AP

LG replies in terms

JB this is right isn't it? you said reasonable at first
LG you're playing with words here
JB but you did say reasonable at first
LG you'll be familiar with this - accusations that your advice has changed between point 1 and 2. My advice did not change

[LG asks him to read the whole email. JB does. "Thanks very much" says Grabs]
JB was it your thought the issues of the CIJ should be substantively the same re the appeal and recusal applications
LG yes because it was hard to differentiate them out

JB you thought the recusal and appeal should be run together
LG yes
JB the PO took a different view
LG don't know anything about that

JB takes him to Ben Foat's email telling the PO they lost the recusal appeal application

rest of the email

JB then takes him to an email above Foat's from LN to LG
LG asks him to read it out in full
JB does

JB were you party to the advice that the two appeals should be run together
LG no recollection
JB did you think it gave you an out
LG no

JB did you discuss it with LN - needing an out after the recriminations began
LG I did not need an out in this case
JB did you respond to his suggestion that it gave you an out
LG absolutely not
JB those are all the questions I have - thank you
LG I'm tempted to say thank you

[And on that utterly graceless note from Lord Grabiner, we end for the day]

I'll be back to tomorrow for a couple of potentially less interesting witnesses - Tom Beezer from Womble Bond Dickinson (the Post Office solicitors who instructed both De Garr Robinson and Grabiner in Bates v Post Office) and Matthew Lenton, a document manager from Fujitsu

Thanks for reading. And thanks to those who signed up for the newsletter on the basis of this thread. V grateful.

@threadreaderapp unroll pls