How Plaid Cymru Works - 13

This is the thirteenth tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.

From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Wednesday, 11 December 2013, 5:59pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Michael

In accordance with clause 6.7. of the Standing Orders, this is a note to confirm receipt of your appeal against the decision of the Hearing Panel which you are making on the grounds outlined in 6.3i and 6.3ii.

I will inform the remaining members of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel of your appeal which will be heard in no fewer than 7 days and no more than 35 days.

You have asked that I do not forward this email indiscriminately which of course I wouldn’t do. Would you be content, however, for me to share it with the remaining members of the MDS Panel who will hear the appeal, or will you be submitting a separate document for their consideration?

Kind regards

Rhuanedd

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Friday, 13 December 2013, 3:59am
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Rhuanedd

Thank you for your email confirming that the appeal will be heard within the next 7 to 35 days.

Thank you also for asking me about the forwarding of emails. I appreciate being asked. It is clearly inappropriate for those on the previous Hearing Panel to have any involvement with or influence over the appeal, and that was the main point I made in the postscript.

I certainly would not object to what I have said being known to anyone else, but it is actually up to you to decide what parts of it you copy to which other parties. I think it's fair to say that this whole matter has become complicated, so there might well be merit in simplifying things as much as possible so as to make it easier to deal with each part adequately. That is why I divided my email to you into three separate sections.

The first section relates only to the appeal, and would therefore need to be copied to the Appeal Panel when it has been set up. The appeal is being heard on the basis that the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust, and not (to comply with Clause 6.2) on re-hearing the details of the case or its outcome. Therefore if the appeal concentrates only on that matter it might well be unnecessary for the Appeal Panel to be made aware of the content of the second and third sections.

The primary purpose of the second section is to register my dissatisfaction with those responsible for the procedure as set out in standing orders being ignored. These are matters which are relevant to the party as an organization, which need to be addressed to ensure that similar disciplinary proceedings are conducted in a more fair and even-handed way than this one has been. If the Appeal Panel only concerns itself with ascertaining the fact of whether or not the procedure followed was in accordance with standing orders, rather than why the situation was allowed to get out of hand, the second section would probably not be relevant. But it is possible that the Appeal Panel might ask for information about why these matters were not dealt with before the formal hearing was held and, if so, the second section would then become relevant. It might therefore be better to exercise discretion at this stage, until the view of the Appeal Panel becomes clear.

The third section is a response to the assertions made in the email of 5 December. As the appeal will not re-hear the case, I thought it necessary to record my response to the points made while I had the opportunity to do so. The same principle applies as before: I would not wish to needlessly complicate matters if it was accepted that the sole issue under consideration in this appeal was to determine whether the procedure adopted was flawed, because the so-called "findings" of the Hearing Panel would be irrelevant.

In short, therefore, although I have no objection to anything I have written being forwarded to the Appeal Panel, I would rely on your discretion as to what extent it is appropriate to do so, and at what stage. Everything will depend on how the appeal process proceeds, and I will now turn to that.

-

You asked about what I will submit to the appeal. It is my intention to produce a written statement of evidence that will amplify the points made in section one of my previous email. But in order not to unnecessarily complicate what should be a simple matter of ascertaining the fact that the procedure was flawed, a certain amount of dialogue will be necessary to determine whether I submit supplemental information or evidence. I would therefore like to make these suggestions about the best way forward.

The first step is to determine who will hear the appeal. I would need to know who the remaining members of the MDSP are, whether there are any conflicts of interest that would require them to be substituted as set out in Clause 6.6 and, if so, who those substitutes will be.

Once constituted, I would send the Appeal Panel a written statement of evidence. They would, either individually or together, then have the opportunity to send me whatever questions they wished to ask relating to it. I will answer these promptly, and they will of course be able to ask me further questions to clarify anything that is unclear. If the questions and answers were relatively straightforward they could be appended to my statement; if they were complex it might be better for me to produce a revised statement to address all the points raised.

I would also expect that if any evidence was sought from other parties, it would be disclosed to me in good time for me to prepare a response to it.

Once this process was complete the formal appeal would be heard and a decision reached.

Please let me know whether this is acceptable as a way forward.

Best regards

Michael

From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Friday, 13 December 2013, 1:39pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Michael

Thank you again for your response.

I can now confirm a number of details in relation to the appeal hearing and process itself.

The members of the Appeal Panel will be Phil Bevan, Alun Cox, Janet Davies and Richard Grigg. As stated in 6.5 of the Standing Orders, these are the remaining members of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel who until this point have not been involved in the case other than the initial evaluation. Alun Cox will chair this panel and he will be in touch with you shortly.

Having discussed the issues you raised in the first section of your first email with the Chair of the Appeal panel, he has understood that you are lodging the appeal on two grounds i.e.

6.3i  That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii  That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.

If you do not agree that these are the grounds for your appeal, please could you inform the Chair of the Appeal Panel of this.

It is the Chair’s intention to hold the appeal hearing on Tuesday, January 14th at 1730. The Chair will require that all evidence in relation to the appeal is submitted to him by January 10th at 1pm. Standing Order 6.4 states that “in registering an appeal it will be incumbent on the appellant to be specific about what aspect of procedure was breached or which facts are disputed”. The Chair would welcome therefore a submission from you outlining these details by January 10th.

The Chair is currently considering who else he may want to invite to provide evidence by the same deadline. All evidence will be shared by 7pm on January 10th with members of the appeal panel and anyone else who has submitted evidence. The panel will then have an opportunity to ask questions of those who have submitted evidence at the appeal hearing on January 14th.

With regards to your previous emails I have decided to share them both with the Chair of the Appeal Panel, and only the Chair at this time. These letters will not be included as evidence unless you specifically ask the Chair of the Appeal Panel to include them.

I hope this information is helpful.

Kind regards

Rhuanedd

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Saturday, 14 December 2013, 1:22pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Leanne Wood, Alun Cox
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Rhuanedd

Thank you for your email. As Alun is now aware of the points I raised with you in my previous email, I would be equally happy for him to respond to them when he contacts me, as they will have some bearing on the timetable proposed.

I will continue to send Leanne copies of the correspondence, and would ask that Alun does the same.

Best regards

Michael

From: Alun Cox
Sent: Sunday, 15 December 2013, 12:38pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Michael

As indicated by the Chief Executive, I have been appointed to chair the Appeal Panel to investigate the decision of the Hearing Panel which was made on 3rd December and communicated to you on 5th December.

From the email forwarded to me by Rhuanedd (copied below) I understand that you wish to appeal the decision on the following grounds.

6.3i  That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii  That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.

I would welcome confirmation that those are indeed the grounds for the appeal.

As Rhuanedd also indicated, I will require any evidence to support your appeal to reach me no later than 7pm on Friday January 10th. I will be requesting that Chris Franks and Shaughan Feakes also supply evidence by that deadline which I will circulate to all parties.

I have also considered whether to request Dafydd Trystan to submit evidence, but at this time am minded not to do that. He played no part in the organisation of the investigation so would not have a view on the accuracy / inaccuracy of the investigation and his role in the process and procedures of the hearing panel was largely to confirm that the responsibility for the conduct of the hearing was in the hands of the chair of the MDSP. However, I do understand from your emails that considerable correspondence has been made with the Chair of the party regarding the procedures, correspondence that you may wish to include as part of your submission.

If you wish me to reconsider this decision I am open to hearing your views.

Following receipt of all the evidence on 10th Jan I will forward the details to the panel members, the appellant and to those from whom I have requested information. I do not intend to enter into a period of correspondence with any of the parties regarding evidence submitted prior to the hearing on January 14th, when the panel will have an opportunity to consider the written evidence and to question any of the parties at the meeting regarding their evidence. The parties of course may wish to submit further evidence at the hearing to refute or answer assertions / claims made in the evidence of any of the other parties. They may do so in writing or orally at the hearing.

I hope all that is clear. Please let me know if you have any queries.

Regards

Alun

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2013, 8:57pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Alun

Thank you for your email of 15 December. You appear to be unaware of the emails I sent Rhuanedd on 13 and 14 December, so I have included them below and, as I said, will be equally happy for either you or her to address the points raised.

To an extent you have already done so in your email, and I thank you for that.

-

To deal with the basics first, the grounds for my appeal were set out in the first section of my email of 11 December. I trust this provides you with the confirmation you seek.

-

A second factor is that all parties need to be clearly aware of what the appeal is about. This will require you as Chair of the Appeal Panel to be careful that the appeal only deals with matters that are relevant to it.

As I noted in my email of 13 December, the appeal is being heard primarily on the basis that the procedure followed by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust. It therefore seems clear that I only need to demonstrate that:

1.  It was the intention of all parties to follow the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders, and that this could only be ignored if all parties involved (and in particular myself, as the one accused) had given their consent to dispense with, waive or vary any aspect of it;

2.  That the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders was not in fact followed;

3.  That nothing I had done prevented the procedure as laid out in standing orders from being followed.

It is not incumbent on me, or at all reasonable for me, to explain why the procedures set out in standing orders were not followed for the appeal to be successful. Although I have expressed my opinions about why this happened—and was allowed to happen despite my warnings—they are for the most part not directly relevant to this appeal. I certainly believe that Plaid Cymru needs to address these matters, but they must be considered at another time and in another forum.

The corollary to this is that it is not relevant or appropriate for others to use this appeal as a platform for explaining why the procedures set out in standing orders were not followed. I must therefore question why either Chris or Shaughan would be invited to present evidence, for it is difficult to see how they could present any evidence to dispute the facts on which this appeal is based. I have taken care to ensure that every aspect of this matter has been conducted in writing precisely so that there could be no dispute whatsoever about any of these facts.

-

With regard to the details of the procedure and timetable proposed, I welcome some parts of what you say but am concerned about other parts.

An important principle to be followed in any dispute or quasi-judicial procedure is disclosure. Each party concerned needs to know what other parties are going to say in order for them to have adequate time and opportunity to prepare a response. It is in no-one's interest for anyone to be taken by surprise. The idea is for the relevant facts to be clearly and openly "on the table" for all to see well in advance of the hearing, so that the Appeal Panel then only needs to make a decision based on those facts without any argument about what they are.

I therefore warmly welcome your statement that all the evidence needs to be submitted in writing and copied to all parties prior to the appeal itself being heard. However I am concerned that there is much too short a time between the deadline proposed, 1:00pm on Friday 10 January, and the hearing itself at 5:30pm on Tuesday 14 January for either myself or any other party to prepare an adequate response. I can see no good reason to put the deadline back so far.

This problem can be solved in a number of ways, but I would recommend that a date for the initial disclosure of evidence is set so that the parties have sufficient time to respond to it, or to any questions raised by it, by either revising or adding to their final evidence. This would also provide the opportunity to withdraw evidence on any matter that is not in dispute or not relevant to the appeal, so as to avoid wasting time and effort. The date for the submission of final evidence should be at least one full week prior to the date of the hearing.

I do not accept that any of the parties should have the right to submit written or oral evidence at the hearing itself which had not previously been disclosed. It would undermine the principle of disclosure and runs contrary to what you have said about all evidence being submitted prior to the hearing.

Best regards

Michael

 
P.S. I note your comments about Dafydd, and agree that he appears to have had no involvement with the investigation. But that has no bearing on the decisions he made when asked to intervene, nor on his failure to disclose his conflict of interest.

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2013, 9:00pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Alun Cox, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Rhuanedd

In order to properly prepare the appeal, I will need you to provide me with the following information:

1.  The dates of all meetings of the MDSP/Hearing Panel from 24 June 2013 (the date of my first post about Rhun on Syniadau) to date.

2.  The minutes or any other record of those meetings. These may be redacted to exclude items which do not relate to the subject matters referred to in Elin's complaint against me or my complaints against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun. If any meeting did not discuss these matters, a simple statement that it did not will suffice; however I require the dates of any such meetings because the fact that these matters were not discussed in them will be relevant in itself.

3.  Copies of the correspondence, and the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters.

4.  A copy of all the evidence, both written and oral, presented at the so-called hearing of 3 December, from all parties.

Best regards

Michael

From: Alun Cox
Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2013, 10:59pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Michael

Thank you for your email below: I can confirm that the grounds for appeal are as set out in your email of 11th dec, namely:

6.3i  That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii  That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.

In your email below you state that:

As I noted in my email of 13 December, the appeal is being heard primarily on the basis that the procedure followed by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust. It therefore seems clear that I only need to demonstrate that:

1.  It was the intention of all parties to follow the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders, and that this could only be ignored if all parties involved (and in particular myself, as the one accused) had given their consent to dispense with, waive or vary any aspect of it;

2.  That the procedure as laid out in Standing Orders was not in fact followed;

3.  That nothing I had done prevented the procedure as laid out in standing orders from being followed.

I would reiterate that the appeal is being heared on the grounds as stated. It will be for the panel to decide to what extent that a breach of procedure, if a breach has occurred, has led to a flawed process that is unjust. Having said that i would assume that in any submissions that you make that you will outline why you believe that he procedure was flawed and therefore the injustice that has caused.

You go on to state that:

The corollary to this is that it is not relevant or appropriate for others to use this appeal as a platform for explaining why the procedures set out in standing orders were not followed. I must therefore question why either Chris or Shaughan would be invited to present evidence, for it is difficult to see how they could present any evidence to dispute the facts on which this appeal is based. I have taken care to ensure that every aspect of this matter has been conducted in writing precisely so that there could be no dispute whatsoever about any of these facts.

I have asked both Chris and Shaughan to give evidence so that those who were directly involved in the investigation and in the conduct of the procedures are allowed to explain in writing and in person to the panel if they so wish their conduct during the run up to the hearing. In particular i would require them to set out from their perspective what actions they took or did not take to ensure that the original hearing followed the procedures as described and presented the hearing with the facts as they understood them. I have rarely seen cases where facts are not disputed but it will be for the panel to determine that question and I would not enter into a discussion about them prior to the appeal.

I will now turn to your comments regarding the timescale:

I accept your point about the time between the date of disclosure and the appeal panel. when i discussed this with Rhuanedd i think we were both mindful of the christmas break and allowing people enough time after that to prepare their evidence. however i will move the date of submition of evidence to 1pm on the 8th of January from the 10th, not quite a week but sufficient time i believe to prepare for the hearing itself on the 14th. I will inform Chris and Shaughan separately of this.

I have considered your last point regarding written / oral evidence at the hearing but do not agree with your assertion. I have asked all parties to attend the Hearing and no doubt members of the panel will want to question those who attend regarding the submissions that they have made or any ommisions that they feel are relevant. It is therefore important that they are able to give oral evidence at that point. I do however accept your underlying point regarding not being taken by suprise and would make it clear that nay new / amended submisions in writing should deal with clarifying / rebutting evidence already disclosed. It is as I stated before a matter for the panel to decide from the evidence submitted before and at the hearing on the merits of the case.

Lastly to deal with Dafydd - as i have stated the points that you make regarding the procedure and any conflict of interest may or may not form part of your submission but I have deemed that I would not require him to give evidence as I would expect Chris to deal with all questions relating to the procedure nad any actions ao inaction from the Chair of the Party.

Thank you again for your email and I hope that I have dealt with all of your points but please let me know if there is anything that I have missed.

Regards

Alun

From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Thursday, 19 December 2013, 1:08pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Alun Cox, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Michael

Apart from arranging the very first meeting of the full committee of the MDSP, and the initial training for the committee’s members and investigating officer, I have not, for various reasons, been involved in this process at all and therefore cannot supply you with the information you request.

The administrative matters and management of the process relating both to the investigation and the hearing were handled entirely by the Chair, Chris Franks.

I have discussed this with Alun Cox, and we’ve therefore decided that it is best that I refer your request for information to him. I’m sure Alun will respond shortly.

Kind regards

Rhuanedd

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2014, 3:40pm
To: Rhuanedd Richards
Cc: Alun Cox, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Rhuanedd

Thank you for your reply. I didn't write to you because you were or were not involved. I wrote to you because bodies within Plaid Cymru are required to keep records of their meetings, and copies of these records should be submitted to and held at Ty Gwynfor. I was making an administrative request to you as Chief Executive for copies of information you should already hold.

I don't mind whether you, Alun or anyone else sends me this information. All that matters is that I now receive it quickly, otherwise the timetable for the appeal will be put in jeopardy.

If, however, records have not been kept and submitted to Ty Gwynfor, please would either you or Alun confirm this. If so, it would be not only a serious matter in itself, but highly relevant to the appeal.

Best regards

Michael

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2014, 4:10pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Alun

Thank you for reply. First, in the paragraph starting, "I would reiterate that ..." you conclude by saying I should outline why I believe the procedure was flawed and therefore the injustice that has caused. I would take issue with that final phrase. According to Clause 6.2 of Standing Orders, the previous "verdict" is not relevant to this appeal. The Appeal Panel is being asked to consider whether the procedure followed was flawed. If the procedure was flawed, the procedure was therefore unjust. This confirms the point you yourself made when you used the words "a flawed process that is unjust", and we therefore agree on this point. To claim that the procedure was flawed but somehow not unjust would be perverse, as it would negate the whole point of laying out a set of rules in Standing Orders. I therefore only need to demonstrate that the procedure was flawed for the appeal to be successful.

-

Second, with regard to the proposed timetable, thank you for the flexibility you offered. I would have been happy to accept 1pm on 8 January as a date for final submission of all evidence, provided that it was then collated and circulated to all parties later that day. However the preliminary submissions of evidence still need to be made some time before this in order for me to prepare a final submission by then. To do otherwise would put me at a disadvantage for, in outline, the written evidence I will present is already set out in the previous emails I have written. In contrast, I have absolutely no idea what other parties like Chris or Shaughan might wish to say that they couldn't have said when I raised these matters before.

As you will have read in my email to Rhuanedd on 18 December, I am expecting to be provided with specific information from the records that should already be held at Ty Gwynfor which will enable me to finalize a preliminary submission of evidence. You will see from my reply to her why this was addressed to her, even though she then referred it to you. I, of course, don't mind who sends this information to me, as long as I get it. Time is running short, and I will need to receive it by tomorrow at the very latest in order not to put the proposed timetable in jeopardy.

Subject to receipt of this tomorrow, I will complete and submit my preliminary written evidence by Monday 6 January, and expect receive the same from other parties in order to make a final submission on 8 January. But failing this, I must ask that the timetable is adjusted accordingly. Standing Orders say that the appeal hearing should be held within 35 days of registering the appeal, but obviously the Christmas/New Year break has caused difficulties. From my point of view, I have no objection to extending this period by a couple of weeks to make allowance for the holidays, provided that it is also acceptable to yourself, the remainder of the Appeal Panel and to the other parties. I'm saying this not to prolong things, but to offer us all some flexibility in case it should prove necessary.

-

Third, and to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding, I certainly have no objection to anybody presenting evidence orally at the hearing although, obviously, a written record needs to be made of any evidence presented in that way. My point was only that it should not be new evidence that had not previously been disclosed. From what you have said, I think we agree on this point.

Best regards

Michael

From: Alun Cox
Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2014, 11:41pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Hi Michael

To deal with the matters raised in order:

Firstly it is possible that we agree on the point but are arguing over semantics. I do believe it is for you to outline the injustice that has been caused due to the flawed process. It is my view that the panel could conclude that the process was flawed / not fully followed but that no injustice was done. If for example the timetable as laid out for the investigation (4.3) was slightly delayed - report recieved 5 minutes after the deadline agreed I would be open to someone arguing that the process was flawed but would need to be convinced that such a flaw has led to injustice. I would add that this would not be for me to decide but for the panel to consider. Can I therefore reiterate that I would urge you to outline how you beliebve that the process was flawed AND the injustice that has flowed from those flaws. It may of course be obviouse in your submission that the flaw has led to injustice but to avoid doubt I would outline the two linked points. Clause 6.2 i believe is irrelevant to your argument as it merely states that the appeal will not consider the actual case but will deal with any of the grounds for appeal.

Secondly to the points you raised regarding the information that you require. I had asked Chris to furnish the information to me as stated in your email by the 8th along with his submission of all evidence. However following you email i have requested that Chris provide the information to me as soon as possible and I await his response. I will let you have that information as soon as I have it and have impressed on Chris that need to do this with haste. I will certainly correspond with you tomorrow and assess the implications of any inability to provide you with the information that you have requested.

I am however concerned that you may have a different interpretation of the timetable than myself with regards to the evidence. I am expecting yourself, chris and Shaughan to provide any evidence that you wish to provide to the panel no later than 1pm on 8th of January. That evening I will circulate the information supplied to me by all parties to all of the parties concerned and to all members of the panel. I do not think that I have indicated that there would be initial evidence provided on the 6th and then final evidence on the 8th. Once you or the other oparties have that evidence on the 8th it would be for any of the parties to decide how they wish to respond to that evidence in written form or at the appeal hearing itself. As I previously stated I do however accept your underlying point regarding not being taken by suprise and would make it clear that any new / amended submisions in writing should deal with clarifying / rebutting evidence already disclosed.

Lastly I am hoping that we do not need to stray from standing orders in terms of the timescale if that it at all possible - as im sure you will appreciate. I will do all in my power to allow us to proceed but am always mindful of the need to focus on getting the process to be fair as well as wherever possible to stick to our rules.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Best Regards

Alun

From: Alun Cox
Sent: Monday, 6 January 2014, 11:28pm
To: Michael Haggett
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Hello Michael

I have been unable as yet to get the infrmation that you requested from Chris. I had a long conversation with him late last night and he assured me that he would get the info to me in the next few days. As you have indicated that the information is important to the appeal and that you have previously indicated that without the info you would rather postpone the appeal - even outside the permitted 35 days - I have taken the decision to try and move the hearing and the deadlines by one week.

I will need to see what day the other panel members are able to make an appeal hearing but will be trying to aim for the 21st or a day either side of that. I wonder whether you could indicate to me whther you have any preferncess for the date of the appeal hearing.

I would then set a new date for the reciept of information / evidence to be circulated to the panel of around the 15th Jan. I hope that you are in agreement with these decisions but please conntact me urgently if these decisions cause a problem. I am happy to be contacted either by email here or if you want to call me on ----- ------

Regards

alun

From: Rhuanedd Richards
Sent: Tuesday, 7 December 2014, 9:25am
To: Michael Haggett, Alun Cox
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Michael

I’m sorry I didn’t respond to your previous email last week. I was still on annual leave and yesterday I had to -------------------------------------------------. I did however speak with Alun Cox at the end of last week to explain again that the National Office didn’t hold all the information you had requested in your previous email and he subsequently responded and did so again last night.

Kind regards

Rhuanedd

From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2014, 7:21pm
To: Alun Cox
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood
Subject: Re: Appeal and other matters

Dear Alun

Thank you (and by copy of this email, Rhuanedd) for your emails of 6 and 7 January respectively.

I have to say that what has been said causes me some concern. I must seriously question whether it is appropriate for you to have private conversations with someone who has been called to give evidence; for what Chris told you in that conversation might well have some bearing on your opinion, which would in turn affect the decision you will make at the appeal.

The information I asked for in my email of 18 December concerns matters of objective record. However it would appear that records have not been kept ... or, more precisely, that only some records have been kept. This is the only way of interpreting Rhuanedd's statement that Ty Gwynfor "didn't hold all the information" I had requested.

Because this appeal centres on whether the procedure adopted by Chris was or was not flawed, there is clearly a question mark (to say the least) about the objective accuracy of what he might now say, as way he behaved is now being put under the spotlight. I must therefore insist that when you send me the information I have asked for, you distinguish between what is a matter of record kept at the time and information that is only now being supplied from memory.

-

Thank you for asking about my preferences for the date of appeal hearing. I would suggest things need to be handled on a step-by-step basis, rather than just by setting a new date.

First, I need the information I requested, and only after I have received it can I complete my preliminary statement of evidence.

Second, I will need to receive the statements of evidence from other parties before I can respond to any points and questions raised (and for them to respond to mine, of course) in a final statement of evidence for the appeal hearing.

Third, the members of the Appeal Panel will need to be sent copies of my final statement of evidence several days before the date set for hearing itself, because the evidence is too extensive to be properly considered in just one evening.

Best regards

Michael