Extract from a JFSA group circular sent 26 November 2021
It’s been an interesting week, I’ll try and explain without repeating matters previously covered.
Further to the JFSA informing the Inquiry that it was withdrawing its application for Core Participant status, Howe & Co informed me on 24 November 2021 that the Inquiry had written back with the following request from the Chairman -
Further to the JFSA informing the Inquiry that it was withdrawing its application for Core Participant status, Howe & Co informed me on 24 November 2021 that the Inquiry had written back with the following request from the Chairman -
‘To be able to consider the request from JFSA, we ask that you obtain and provide clarification and confirmation that the request is genuine and endorsed by the members of the JFSA (by whatever means required by the constitution, formal or otherwise).’
|
First thing yesterday morning (25 Nov) I sent a response to Howe & Co which they then conveyed to the Inquiry. That response was as follows:-
In responding to the Chairman's request there are three points that initially occur to me, these are:-
‘The first point- We are only exercising the same authority that was used to submit the application for Core Participant status and that authority was accepted by the Inquiry at that time. Second point - We have confirmed that the JFSA has withdrawn as a Core Participant from the Inquiry because the JFSA solely exists to redress the injustices suffered by its SPMR members and not to consider all the issues raised in the final List of Issues by the Inquiry. The JFSA aims to achieve 3 things in short order. Firstly, to recover the £46million taken from its 2019 Mediation pot to pay funding and finance costs incurred in taking the High Court action; secondly to recover the money wrongly taken from SPMRs by the Post Office over 20 years from 2000 to 2020; and thirdly to obtain proper financial redress and damages for all direct and indirect losses suffered by the 555 SPMRs in the GLO Group. By failing to include these issues as specific points within the Inquiry’s Final List of Issues, the Inquiry has made it perfectly clear that it will not be addressing these issues and therefore it is pointless for the JFSA to engage with the Inquiry to pursue the objectives of its membership. Third point - Alan Bates & Kay Linnell, who are in agreement about withdrawing the JFSA from the Inquiry, are the authorised representatives of the JFSA which brought about the GLO legal action, and were contractually approved by each of the 555 members who signed up to the action to act on behalf of the group in all matters appertaining to the group action. Recovering the monies as itemised above is just a continuation of their role. I hope that is enough clarity for the Chairman, if not please let me know.’ |
Later that day (25 Nov) a number of events happened. A letter from the Inquiry was received which stated:-
‘The JFSA’s request for de-designation as a Core Participant is agreed; de-designation is to take effect as at today’s date.’
|
Also in the afternoon, in an email to Howe & Co, the Inquiry now made the following statement:-
‘On behalf of the Chair, Sir Wyn Williams, I can confirm that paragraph 183 of the Inquiry’s List of Issues is intended to consider whether all affected sub-postmasters, sub-postmistresses, managers, assistants, including the 555 Claimants in the group litigation of Alan Bates and Others v Post Office Limited Case [2019] EWHC 34308 (QB), were adequately compensated for the wrongs they had suffered.’
|
Now it could just be a coincidence that the statement appeared after the JFSA had withdrawn and was encouraging others to join with it because the issue of the financial redress for the GLO group had been missing from the final List of Issues, or it may just have been a failure to clarify that point when paragraph 183 was written. You decide, but now it’s there, in writing.
So where are matters now?
As already mentioned the JFSA is no longer a Core Participant. And no, it is not going to apply to be reinstated as a Core Participant in the Inquiry because nowadays, as has also been mentioned, the single aim of the JFSA is to recover the monies the GLO victims group is owed and it’s only in relation to that, when Kay and I have the authority to speak on behalf of the JFSA GLO victim group.
Also, as the Inquiry has a final List of Issues running to 218 items, and the JFSA, as the Inquiry now knows, only has authority to speak for the group in relation to the monies owed to the GLO group, i.e. paragraph 183, there is no point in reregistering to do that because, in the Inquiry’s Protocol on Witness Statements, it states:-
So where are matters now?
As already mentioned the JFSA is no longer a Core Participant. And no, it is not going to apply to be reinstated as a Core Participant in the Inquiry because nowadays, as has also been mentioned, the single aim of the JFSA is to recover the monies the GLO victims group is owed and it’s only in relation to that, when Kay and I have the authority to speak on behalf of the JFSA GLO victim group.
Also, as the Inquiry has a final List of Issues running to 218 items, and the JFSA, as the Inquiry now knows, only has authority to speak for the group in relation to the monies owed to the GLO group, i.e. paragraph 183, there is no point in reregistering to do that because, in the Inquiry’s Protocol on Witness Statements, it states:-
‘The Chair will decide whom to invite to give written or oral evidence (or both), irrespective of whether that person has been designated a core participant.’
|
So if the Chair wishes to hear from the JFSA at the time the Inquiry discusses paragraph 183, then the JFSA will be delighted to provide whatever is required, and it does not need to be a Core Participant in order to contribute on the matter.