From: " [=. To: a i (r Cc:" 'c Subject: RE: Material Witness PA Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 15:16:24 +0000 I haven't seen anything similar to this before. In those cases in which we have asked for a formal interview, we lay out the nature of the investigation and the questions we want asked. Since we do so few of these, I haven't seen one which has come back in which there were questions about predication for each subject matter. They do ask for that kind of separate predication all the time when we are seeking records of different types from different sources. I am guessing they are seeking to build the best record they can for what they see as an inevitable judicial review. From: Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 3:04 PM To: Cc: Subject: RE: Material Witness PA Thanks, =. We will inquire of the team and report back. Since I know I will be asked here, is it standard protocol for the Home Office to demand more predication where, as here, we already plan to proceed with an interview on one subject for which the facts are not thin? Put differently, it would strike us as fairly common place to question a witness about anything and everything of interest if you're bringing him in, so assuming they agree (as they seem to) that we are predicated to question on Epstein, it seems unusual to not permit us to also ask a few questions about even if our facts in that investigation are not as fully developed right now. From: Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 8:58 AM To: Cc: Subject: FW: Material Witness PA >; Here is my email and the UKCA response. I also had a conversation with Dawn Browne about this to discuss the way forward. Just as a reminder, they are waiting on any additional information you have on If we have given them all we have, then we can just say this. They think the facts on that matter are pretty thin. With regard to the voluntary interview issue, Dawn explained in more detail why they have been looking for us to exhaust all avenues