POL00097876
POL00097876
Message
From: Susan Crichton [IMCEAEX-
__O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=SUSAN+20CRICHTOF
DC28-49AB-8FOF-BE4237A4AD4I
on behalf Susan Crichton <IMCEAEX-
of _O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=SUSAN+20CRICHTOF
Sent: 26/03/2013 1
To: Alwen Lyons; GRO } Hugh Flemington (
Subject: Re: Second Sight Hoté Tron Meeting 25" awrarch te
Sensitivity:Company Confidential
The James amendments make interesting reading. What have u told PV?
From: Alwen Lyons
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 06:09 PM
To: Susan Crichton; Hugh Flemington
Subject: RE: Second Sight note from meeting 25 March
Second Sight very nervous about the meeting and the implications for the review. Have just had an email from Janet
offering a call in the morning. So I will call her in the morning.
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons I Company Secretary
@ 148 Old Street, LONDON
From: Susan Crichton
Sent: 26 March 2013 18:02...
james.arbuthnot.mp....,---GRO
Cc: Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker; ‘irt
‘rwarming GRO
POL-0097459
POL00097876
POL00097876
Subject: Re: Second Sight note from meeting 25 March
Sensitivity: Confidential
Dear James
Thank you for your email I will forward it as requested.
Regards
Susan Crichton
From: ARBUTHNOT, James [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 03?4s-rrer
To: Susan Crichton nn nannies
Cc: Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker; Ian Henderson ¢ GRO
Subject: Second Sight note from meeting 25 Maretr-------
Dear Susan,
T have had sight of Ian Henderson's email to you following the meeting held at Westminster on 25 March. I
would be grateful if you would forward this message to Ruth X. Barker and Mark R. Davies, neither of whom is
known to me, nor do I have their email addresses, but as they were included in the initial circulation, I feel
they ought to be able to read my response.
The reason I am writing is that my recollection of the meeting is somewhat different to his. I plan to circulate
the note my office made of the meeting in due course, but please would you note the following comments
from me (in red), which refer directly to Ian Henderson's points in the email he sent to you, copied below.
1. There was broad support for the concept of reporting on issues rather than individual cases - rather
than ‘support’, I think I would express this as ‘understanding’. MPs will, in the end, want to know how
their individual constituent's case concludes, and whether it can be stated that their constituent has
been wrongly accused.
2. The MPs want Second Sight to report on a much wider range of issues in July than we had planned i.e.
not just the Horizon transaction issues. A consequence of this is that any report in July will be an
interim not a final report - this is not my recollection of what was discussed or agreed at the meeting.
Although the possibility of a July meeting was mooted, and the possibility that the report that might be
presented at that meeting might be interim in nature, no desire for a wider range of issues to be
reported on was mentioned by MPs.
3. There was broad support for the proposal to run a series of tests in the Model Office replicating the
specific scenarios reported by SPMRs - this was not really discussed. What I heard was that the Model
Office was offered to Second Sight as a way to test processes and the system by the Post Office, but
no express support - or lack of it - for its use was discussed or agreed.
4. Alan Bates reported that a significant number of SPMRs had not accepted the JFSA / POL agreement
and remained concerned about possible retribution from POL. This has resulted in under reporting of
cases and issues. (This was the first time we had been told about this) - this is true. I was rather
irritated that Alan Bates raised this without warning, and did so publicly.
5. MPs (and JFSA) reported continuing concern about "heavy handed" audit and investigations processes
and the inability within POL to differentiate between genuine issues of concern reported by SPMRs
compared with suspected fraud or theft. This is causing real hardship to SPMRs and may lead to
suicides. (This was mentioned more than once) - this was the view coming from the JFSA, not MPs. I
POL-0097459
POL00097876
POL00097876
do not recall any mention of suicides at the meeting, but JFSA did raise the point that POL continues
even today to prosecute allegations of theft without the prior investigation or the tentativeness that
this investigation would suggest might be necessary.
6. MPs were pleased to note the personal involvement of Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells but would like
this to be extended within POL to a much more sympathetic attitude to SPMRs with problems. They felt
internal communication processes within POL were not working well. There was universal concern
about the continuing use of comments such as "we have total confidence in the Horizon system" which
are contrary to the experience reported by a number of SPMRs - I am unhappy with the way this is
expressed. There was no expression of any views from MPs or their representatives about internal
communications within the Post Office, nor that the personal involvement of staff beyond senior
management ought to be extended. That the Post Office continues to claim confidence in Horizon is
factually correct, and I emphasized that until cases were put to the Post Office which undermined this
confidence, the Post Office's stance was understandable.
7. Inthe light of the issues now being looked at by Second Sight, POL should consider a suspension of all
current prosecutions activity until after July at least - this was not specifically discussed at the meeting,
but it may well follow from the point I make at 5 above.
8. There was widespread support for the view that it is essential the investigation continues to be
supported by POL as it was felt that this is the best opportunity to really dig into the issues and
concerns reported by SPMRs - as above, a good point. There was, however, concern that the matter
was going on so long and costing POL a lot.
To my mind, the meeting went as well as could be expected. I would not go so far as to support Ian's opinion
that ‘extensive concern’ was expressed about the investigation and prosecution processes the Post Office is
following. My impression is that by and large, we listened to what was being presented to us by Second Sight.
Mike Wood and Kevin Barron certainly did mount some robust questioning, as they should, but to shape this
as ‘extensive concern’ is stretching things a bit, I think.
I shall circulate my briefing in due course, but would be grateful if you would note my comments above.
Yours ever,
James
Office of the Ri Hon James Arbuthnot, MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
www jJamesarbuthnot.com
From: Ian Henderson [mailt i
Sent: 26 March 2013 10:25 b------- ner w nnn
To: ‘Susan Crichton’ a
Cc: ‘Alwen Lyons’; 'Simon Baker’; ‘Ruth X Barker’; 'Mark R Davies’; ‘warming GRO I
Subject: Meeting with MPs - 25 March 2013 ~ ~
Sensitivity: Confidential
POL-0097459
POL00097876
POL00097876
CONFIDENTIAL
Susan
The meeting with MPs went reasonably well, however there was robust questioning from a number of MPs, particularly
Mike Wood MP and extensive concern expressed about POL investigation and prosecutions processes. Janet Walker will
be circulating an official minute of the meeting in due course. Whilst Shoosmiths were present throughout, they took no
part in the meeting and did not comment at any point.
l attach a copy of the Second Sight Briefing Note that was tabled at the meeting.
Headline points from the meeting were:
1. There was broad support for the concept of reporting on issues rather than individual cases
2. The MPs want Second Sight to report on a much wider range of issues in July than we had planned i.e. not just
the Horizon transaction issues. A consequence of this is that any report in July will be an interim not a final
report.
3. There was broad support for the proposal to run a series of tests in the Model Office replicating the specific
scenarios reported by SPMRs
4. Alan Bates reported that a significant number of SPMRs had not accepted the JFSA / POL agreement and
remained concerned about possible retribution from POL. This has resulted in under reporting of cases and
issues. (This was the first time we had been told about this)
5. MPs (and JFSA) reported continuing concern about "heavy handed" audit and investigations processes and the
inability within POL to differentiate between genuine issues of concern reported by SPMRs compared with
suspected fraud or theft. This is causing real hardship to SPMRs and may lead to suicides. (This was mentioned
more than once)
6. MPs were pleased to note the personal involvement of Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells but would like this to
be extended within POL to a much more sympathetic attitude to SPMRs with problems. They felt internal
communication processes within POL were not working well. There was universal concern about the continuing
use of comments such as "we have total confidence in the Horizon system" which are contrary to the experience
reported by a number of SPMRs.
7. Inthe light of the issues now being looked at by Second Sight, POL should consider a suspension of all current
prosecutions activity until after July at least
8. There was widespread support for the view that it is essential the investigation continues to be supported by
POL as it was felt that this is the best opportunity to really dig into the issues and concerns reported by SPMRs.
I will circulate Janet Walkers note of the meeting as soon as I receive it
With best wishes
Ian R Henderson CCE CISA FCA
Advanced Forensics - London, UK
Forensic computing expert witness and electronic disclosure specialist
http: //advancedforensics.com
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/forensicgod
Twitter: http://twitter.com/forensicgod
POL-0097459
POL00097876
POL00097876
CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at r GRO and
delete the email and any attachments. is J
notify the se
cked for vir.
POL-0097459