10th November 2017 – From Julia Crouch, Deputy Director of the Public Law and Litigation Team to Angie Zelter saying ‘In the Attorney General’s view, the material provided by the PICAT Project is insufficient to show that any offence has been committed. Accordingly, the Attorney General has declined to give his consent to the proposed prosecution’.
1st November 2017 – From Angie Zelter for PICAT groups to A-G and Head of Business of A-G’s office about continuing delay.
20th October 2017 – From Correspondence Officer, A-G’s Office to Angie for PICAT groups replying that this matter is being brought to a conclusion as swiftly as possible.
16th October 2017 – From Angie Zelter for PICAT groups to A-G about continuing unreasonable delay. Copied to the Complaints Team.
5th October 2017 – From A-G to Angie for PICAT groups confirming work on application is continuing and we will receive their detailed response as soon as practicable.
29th September 2017 – From Angie for PICAT groups to A-G referring to 17th August email saying they would be in a position to provide us with a detailed response to our application by the end of September and said we were expecting a response by the end of the day.
13th September 2017 – From Julia Crouch, Deputy Director of the Public Law and Litigation Team saying after having reviewed the file was satisfied high quality work has gone into considering the application, accepting that there was a period between March and August when progress on the file was slower than ideal due to pressure of other urgent work and the file being re-allocated and that every effort is being made to get a decision as swiftly as possible.
17th August 2017 – From Angie for PICAT groups to A-G asking when we would receive a reply as were expecting it a few days ago. Stated that the tensions and build up for possible nuclear war made it imperative that we are given permission to start proceedings now.
11th August 2017 – From Nicol Harlow, Head of Business Support in reply to complaint about time and saying that our voluminous information had been reviewed and anticipates providing a response by September. It also said that the AG acts independently of Government when taking a decision whether to consent to a prosecution.
24th July 2017 – From Robbie to Head of Business Support about delay responding to Application for Consent to prosecute. Sent with a chronology
18th July 2017 – From Robbie to A-G about writing to Robbie whilst Angie away.
18th July 2017 – From Craig Hollands to Angie saying the Application raises a number of complex issues that require careful consideration and they are bot in a position to provide a detailed response but anticipate doing so within the next 4 weeks.
29th June 2017 – From Angie to A-G saying the 399 Informant Prosecutors in the 5 groups feel that the delay is now unacceptable and will be instructing our legal team to consider a civil action if we do not receive a detailed response in 3 weeks time.
29th June 2017 – From A-G to Angie saying work still ongoing and will give a further update in 4 weeks.
28th June 2017 – From Angie to A-G saying most disappointed to have no response and when would we hear.
31st May 2017 – From Correspondence Unit of A-G Office to Angie saying work is ongoing and they will provide an update in 4 weeks.
23rd May 2017 – From Angie to A-G asking to be informed about when we will receive a full response.
24th April 2017 – From Correspondence Unit of A-G Office to Angie saying our application raises a number of issues, we have provided a considerable quantity of material and it will take time to review the case and an update will be provided in 4 weeks.
12th April 2017– From Angie to A-G asking when we might expect to receive a response to our request to prosecute.
6th March 2017 – From Craig Hollands to Robbie Manson acknowledging receipt of 4th February indictment.
28th February 2017 – From Robbie to Mr Hollands asking for receipt of indictment.
4th February 2017 – From Angie to Craig Hollands with the indictment.
26th January 2017 – From Craig Hollands to Angie saying we are required to provide an indictment.
26th January 2017 – From Angie Zelter for PICAT to Craig Hollands referring to our letter of 1st October 2016 which stated the charge was Conspiracy to commit a war crime contrary to s %! ICC Act 2001 ans Section 1 Criminal Law Act
13th January 2017 – From Craig Hollands to Angie saying that they had not yet received the draft indictment and asking when they would receive it and to ensure that all the evience we propsed to rely on had been submitted.
23rd November 2016 – From Angie to Craig Hollands asking that all communications are addressed to Angie who will then forward them to Counsel and copy to Robbie. Also stating that it was dissapointing that 7 weeks had elapsed before asking these questions.
22nd November 2016 – From Craig Hollands to Robbie Manson saying they were considering the complex issues and wanted us to provide a draft indictment and saying needed all the evidence we wished to rely upon.
7th October 2016 – From Craig Hollands to Angie acknowledging receipt of correspondence.
3rd October 2016 – From Craig Hollands to Angie acknowledging receipt of 1sr October correspondence.
1st October 2016 – From Doughty St Chambers to A-G (Mr Hollands) relating to matters about whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
8th September 2016 – From Angie to Craig Hollands of A-G office clarifying that Counsel Kirsty Brimelow QC, Megan Hirst and Professor Nick Grief of Doughty Street Chambers are instructed on behalf of all 5 PICAT groups and would forward any additional materials by 21st September 2016.
7th September 2016 -From Angie on behalf of Knighton, Norwich and Sevenoaks PICAT groups explaining that whilst Robbie Manson was representing the West Wales and Pembrokeshire groups the other 3 groups have instructed counsel who were reviewing the materials and might add to them and if so will do so within 14 days.
6th September 2016 – From Robbie to Mr Hollands sending a further 12 brief position papers and 2 further appendices.
5th September 2016 – From Robbie and Angie for PICAT to Craig Hollands, Correspondence Unit, A-G’s office in response to the email of 3rd August the Prosecution Position was attached.
3rd August 2016 – From Craig Hollands, Correspondence Unit, A-G’s office to Mr Manson writing in response to 5 requests which they intend to handle as a single request for consent received by multiple groups. He raised a number of legal issues of concern including intention of bringing in the corporate sole of the office of the Secretary of State for Defence and also draft charges of conspiracy under Section 52(1) rather than 51(1). Asked if and when we would submit further evidence.
27th July 2017 – From Angie, Alicia, Jim and Robbie on behalf of all 5 PICAT groups saying that as there was a declared intention to make a formal response within 28 days of the 20th July 2016 we would defer from taking litigious action. Also included PICAT’s Prosecutorial Posture and extract on the Moscow Criterion.
20th July 2016 – From Craig Hollands, Correspondence Unit, A-G’s office – stating that the proposed challenge for Judicial Review was not considered to be well-founded and if a claim was issued the A-G would seek his costs if successful. Also said would endeavour to ensure that a decision on the granting of consent is made within 28 days of this letter.
15th July 2016 – From Robbie Manson, PICAT – writing on behalf of the 5 groups about delay of 2 ½ months and setting out a Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review.
15th June 2016 – From Sevenoaks PICAT to A-G about the laying of information and asking for consent to proceed. 15 Informant Prosecutors signed the indictments from Sevednoaks.
5th May 2016 – From West Wales PICAT to A-G about the laying of information and asking for consent to proceed. 12 Informant Prosecutors signed the indictments from West Wales.
3rd May 2016 – From Pembrokeshire PICAT to A-G about the laying of information and asking for consent to proceed. 50 Informant Prosecutors signed the indictments from Pembrokeshire.
9th April 2016 – From Norfolk PICAT to A-G about the laying of information and asking for consent to proceed. 260 Informant Prosecutors signed the indictments from Norfolk.
23rd February 2016 – From Dionne Semper, Business Administration Manager – Criminal Law and Civil Team of the A-G’s office acknowledging safe receipt of the documents relating to the potential consent case.
19th February 2016 – From Knighton PICAT to A-G about the laying of information at Merthyr Tyfil and asking for consent to proceed. 62 Informant Prosecutors signed the indictments from Mid Wales.
3rd February 2016 – Application made to Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates Court by Angie Zelter on behalf of the Powys PICAT group.
3rd November 2015 – From L.Vaccarello, MoD to Knighton group saying the UK would only employ nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence.
1st October 2015 – Knighton group wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence .