Annex 148
Letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards from Finers Stephens Innocent, Solicitors
We have received a copy of your letter of 21
June direct to our client. This raises a number of concerns:
1. We asked you in our letter of 1 June
2000, on instructions from our client, to correspond directly
with us rather than our client. In a subsequent letter sent from
our client to you on 16 June 2000, this point was reiterated by
our client. However, you have sought to address our client once
more directly, as has the Chairman of the Committee on Standards
and Privileges, Robert Sheldon. This is most inappropriate while
we are acting for Mr Kapasi, and particularly in the light of
both our and our client's requests. Once more, we would ask that
you correspond directly with us and not with our client.
2. There appear to be numerous misunderstandings
in relation to this matter, no doubt exacerbated as discussed
in 1 above. Once such misunderstanding of great concern to us
is referred to in the last paragraph of your letter in which you
appear to be attempting to drive a wedge between us and our client.
There is no question that we have not followed our client's instructions
to get back to you by 14 June. To that end, we enclose a copy
of the various correspondences that we have made with you since
Mr Mark Stephens returned from business out of the country.
3. You have not responded to the question
raised in our letters of 9 June and we should be grateful for
your response. You will appreciate that Sir Peter Soulsby's motive
in seeking to involve our client in this matter is highly relevant
and a matter of great concern to our client. We believe this material
information necessary before finally advising our client.
21 June 2000
| 
