POL00062368
POL00062368
Message
From: Rodric Williams [rodric.williams?
on behalf of — Rodric Williams <rodric.williams} [rodric.williamst_ j
Sent: 12/15/2014 12:18:06 PM
To: Parsons, Andrew [andrew.parsons:
Subject: FW: Discuss of defect in horizon in court Seema Misra and Lee Castleton
Rodric williams I Litigation Lawyer Description: split
Description: address
rodric.williams,
Description: web
Post Office stories
twitter
Description
@
.
Description: footer
Sia Original Message-----
From: Jarnail A Singh
sent: 01 July 2013 16:47
To: Hugh Flemington; Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker; Rodric williams
Cc: Lesley J Sewell
Subject: RE: Discuss of defect in horizon in court Seema Misra and Lee Castleton
In criminal trials both the prosecution and defence put their case to the jury. who make a decision
“beyond all reasonable doubt" on finding the defendant guilty ,jury do not give reasons for their
verdict and it is not possible to ask the jury the basis and details on which they made their decision.
On occasion particular point can be inferred.
This is the only criminal trial where a jury has been required to consider in detail the integrity of the
Horizon system.
1.Seema Misra was sub postmistress at West Byfleet. She was accused of stealing £74,609.84, between 2005
and 2008. On 21/10/10, after a 7 day trial, she was found guilty by the jury of the theft.
2.Mrs Misra claimed that, although she was guilty of false accounting, she had not stolen the money whose
loss she had concealed. She suggested that one possible reason why the money appeared to be missing might
be computer error. The jury heard from expert witnesses for the Crown and the Defence. Their evidence
was sufficiently detailed as to have lasted two full days. The jury’s verdict showed that it was sure
that computer error played no role in the case. There has been no appeal against conviction.
3.We instructed our own expert, Gareth Jenkins, from Fujitsu. This was a turning-point in the case.
Professor McLachlan fairly conceded that Mr Jenkins had given him very great assistance in understanding
Horizon. Mr Jenkins was able to explain to Professor McLachlan how many of his theories were not valid
and based on a misunderstanding of Horizon. Mr_Jenkins advised that the only way to assess any problems
at West Byfleet was to obtain the transaction logs and to examine them for potential problems. Obtaining
the logs was expensive and their analysis was time-consuming. However, after both experts had completed
this analysis, neither could find evidence of any computer error whatsoever that could have contributed
to the deficiency.
4.In his evidence to the jury Professor McLachlan conceded that all of the theoretical problems he had
raised were now irrelevant. He abandoned most of his theories after being assisted to a better
understanding by Mr Jenkins, Other theories he had checked against the transaction logs and had found to
be baseless. In a nutshell his final conclusion was this: he hadn't found any problem but there still
might have been a problem that he and Jenkins might have missed. The jury clearly rejected this as
wishful thinking, after considering all of the evidence in the case.
5.The most significant case reviewed was that of Lee Castleton (Civil case only). He brought a civil
action alleging deficiencies in the Horizon system. He, unlike any other Sub post master, was prepared to
be specific about some of the problems he claimed to have encountered. His claims were utterly refuted in
the written Judgment of the case. The Judgment explains in detail why Mr Castleton’s allegations were
rejected. It provides a rigorous analysis that is woefully absent from the vague and illogical
complaints about Horizon that are reported in some sections of the media. The Judgment referred briefly
to a real computer problem that had emerged at the Callender Square office in Falkirk. Gareth Jenkins
to investigate this problem. He provided a detailed summary of the problem in his witness statement(
dated 9/3/10 page 14). He also explained in that statement why he concluded that it was irrelevant to Mrs
Misra’s case
Jarnail Singh I Criminal Lawyer
POL-0058847
POL00062368
POL00062368
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
Post Office stories
@postofficenews
-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Flemington
Sent: O01 July 2013 10:43
To: Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker; Rodric williams; Jarnail A Singh
Cc: Lesley J Sewell
Subject: Re: Discuss of defect in horizon in court
Jarnail - can you get castleton case details plse asap as alwen has asked for
----- Original Message -----
From: Alwen Lyons
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 09:40 AM
To: ‘Gareth. Jenkin:
williams
Cc: Lesley J Sewell; 'James.Davidson_
Subject: Re: Discuss of defect in hor’:
<Gareth. Jenkin:
simon Baker; Hugh Flemington; Rodric
<James Davidson
Thanks Gareth can we get the witness statement for Castleton please Hugh Thanks Alwen
Alwen Lyons
Soupany..secretary
7 _.GR i
Sent from Blackberry
conne Original Message -----
From: Jenkins Gareth GI_[mailto:Gareth. Jenkins:
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 09:28 AM
To: Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker _
Cc: Lesley J Sewell; Davidson James <James.Davidsoni,
Subject: RE: Discuss of defect in horizon in court
Alwen,
I understand the bug was spoken about in the Castelton case (I wasn't personally involved). It was
definitely spoken about in the Misra case where it was interrogated about it at length. Other cases
where it was mentioned were settled out of court as far as I know.
Does that clarify things?
Regards
Gareth
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Business Applications Architect
Post office Account
FUJITSU
Lovelace Road, Br:
Tel: {
Mobile: .
email: Jenkin
Web: http: //uk. fuji tsi con
POL-0058847
POL00062368
POL00062368
Fujitsu is proud to partner with Shelter, the housing and homeless charity Reshaping ICT, Reshaping
Business in partnership with FT.com P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email?
-----' Original Message-----
From: Alwen Lyons [mailto:alwen. lyot
Sent: 01 July 2013 10:28
To: Jenkins Gareth GI; Simon Baker
Cc: Lesley J Sewell; Davidson James
Subject: Re: Discuss of defect in horizon in court
The question was really about whether the defect had been spoken about in open court other than in the
Misra case as it helps that it was in the public domain and not ‘covered up’ in any way
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons
Company Secretary
Sent from Blackberry
Original Message -
From: Jenkins Gareth GI_[mai]to:Gareth. Jenkinst..
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 09:21 AM
To: Simon Baker r
Cc: Alwen Lyons; Lesley J Sewell; Davidson James <James.Davidsor,
Subject: RE: Discuss of defect in horizon in court
simon,
I'm not aware of any other specific bugs being discussed in court (either related to Horizon or HNG-X).
The Falkirk bug was first raised in the Castleton Civil case and was then picked up on for a number of
subsequent Criminal cases even through it was irrelevant to those environments. Defence experts were
using it as an example that Horizon has had bugs
Regards
Gareth
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Business Applications Architect
Post Office Account
FUJITSU
Lovelace Road, B 2.RG12 8SN
Tel: ' Interna fern RQ sowed
Mobile: i “Tho. Entkernal:
email: Gareth. Jenkin:
Web: http: //uk. fujitsu.com
Fujitsu is proud to partner with Shelter, the housing and homeless charity Reshaping ICT, Reshaping
Business in partnership with FT.com P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email?
conn Original Message-----
From: Simon Baker [mailto:simon. baker,
Sent: 28 June 2013 18:50
To: Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: Alwen Lyons; Lesley J Sewel
Subject: Discuss of defect in horizon in court
Gareth
You mention discussing the falkirk bug in the Misra case today, are there any other examples where bugs
have been discussed in court.
simon
POL-0058847
POL00062368
POL00062368
ae ae wae aie wee oer
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of
the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
Tein nen ioniininiinininii iri ieniniir ini ietinieinioiiiiesiiniriiorinieirdoieiiiirsiiciriieteiotetr ate
unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS)
Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu".
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of
confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted
and amended or that it is virus-free.
Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London wiu
3BW.
Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London wlu
3BW.
PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park
Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull
Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of
the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
TERESI ISI I ISI ICI IEEE IE ISI IGRI ISR IACI II ICSE Sea SE Sea Ses Hea ge Seae eeae ee dese ae
unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS)
Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu".
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of
confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted
and amended or that it is virus-free.
Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London wiu
3BW.
Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London wiu
3BW.
PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park
Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull
Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.
FERRER REE REE RRR ARR RRR ERR EE RR RE I ISO ICI I SCRE SESE SE S He He aa aa
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of
the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON ECIV 9HQ.
Tein Inn init ini init ier ier ini iniea andra degree siaie rar aiiedrsiinir sie raises stair aaa te
POL-0058847