POL00098774
POL00098774
Message
From: PaulaVennellsi sss >, :
on behalf of Paula Vennellsi_ — GRO st
Sent: 27/06/2013 14
To: Susan Crichton:
Subject: Fwd: Second Sight Investigation - Update
Attachments: image010.jpg; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png; image006.png; image007.gif; image008.gif;
image009.png
FYI. I hope the holiday apart from this is good :)
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rodric Williams I
Date: 27 June 2013 1:
To: Paula Vennells
Cc: Hugh Flemington i
Subject: Second Sight Investigation - Update
Paula —here is a summary of our discussion on the Horizon investigation, with some additional points on
criminal prosecutions.
1. <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]--> Horizon Generally
Over the past ten years:
- _ <!+[if supportLists]--><![endif]-->many millions of branch reconciliations;
if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->carried out by 25,000 subpostmasters and their staff in Post
Office branches;
- <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->transactions and balances accurately recorded;
i.e. if there was a systemic problem, we would have seen it replicated on a widespread basis.
Where we have identified “bugs” in Horizon, we have shared these with Second Sight.
2. <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Scope of Second Sight Review
“To identify, consider and advise on whether there are any systemic issues and/or concerns with the
‘Horizon’ system, including training and support processes, giving evidence and reasons.”
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Scope DOES NOT extend to considering any individual criminal
prosecution or conviction;
e = <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Second Sight are not expert in or qualified to comment upon
criminal prosecution process or procedures;
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Second Sight have not identified for Post Office Limited any
issue with Horizon which Second Sight says was directly responsible for a criminal conviction.
3. <!--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->Issues Reviewed
¢ <!--[if lsupportLists]--><![endif]-->10 issues raised by Second Sight;
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->In each case, we have been able to demonstrate (with
supporting documentation) that Horizon acted as designed;
POL-0098357
POL00098774
POL00098774
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Second Sight seem to be saying that because Horizon has
“bugs”, it is not safe for Post Office to rely upon the data it produces, e.g. in a criminal case to
show branch shortfalls. This is a significant and unhelpful assumption to make.
4. <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Criminal Prosecutions
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->No cases since at least separation have seen convictions
secured on Horizon-based evidence alone, e.g. there has also been a paper trail, money in bank
account, confession, and/or lies at interview exposed.
e = <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->Again, since separation every time the defendant has alleged
a specific issue with Horizon, we have been able to refute this to the Court’s satisfaction.
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->If a person feels their conviction is unsafe, they need to
produce new evidence and get the Court’s permission to appeal.
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->A sound bite from a Second Sight report is unlikely to be
sufficient.
e <!--[if !supportLists]--><![endif]-->If we found a problem which contributed to a conviction, we
would be under a duty to raise this with the Court.
Please let me know of you need anything further.
Kind regards, Rodric
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
i a
=
=
=
@postofficenews
I
I
I
POL-0098357