POL00107746
POL00107746
Message
From: Simon Baker [imceaex-
__O=mms_ou=exchange+20administrative+20group+20+28fydibohf23spdit+29_cn=recipients_cn=simon+2ebaker4b1a8ef6-
d2e0-4dec-94ea-59 1dfa651f2e@c7 2a47.ingest.local]
Sent: 05/07/2012 17:28:12
To:
I Mike Granville
ingela Van-Den-Bogert
Subject: Re: Today's Meeting
Hi Rod
I think the auditors get this, but want to establish on their own, on the balance of probability, if the
loss is due to a systems problem, or something untoward in the branch. For some it will be clear eg when
the spm admitted using the cash to support their retail business.
The consensus at the meeting today was that we have to let this play this out. There is a risk that the
review will be inconclusive which will probably lead to demands more work, eg a drains up review of
horizon which will be expensive but if it puts the issue to bed probably worth it.
I think that is a fair summary of where we are.
simon
Steel Original Message -----
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 06:59 PM
To: Simon Baker; Alana Renner; Mike Granville; Lesley J Sewell; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Alwen Lyons
Subject: RE: Today's Meeting
Just to comment on 2 specific phrases below:
- "... focussing not on whether there had been False Accounting but on IDENTIFYING THE UNDERLYING ROOT
CAUSE OF THE DISCREPANCY. » and
what we would focus'on would be identifying the real cause of the losses;... and...ideally,
where the money went; whether it was stolen; by whom; and WHY.
In situations where cash is misappropriated there is no icon in Horizon for the user to say "I have taken
£x out of the till for myself".
one can explore the personal circumstances and temptations which lead to individuals taking money, but
the system would not record any root cause of that physical theft.
In those cases, there is false accounting when a cash balance is signed up to which no longer exists in
the office.
Rod
ooeee Original Message-----
From: Simon Baker
Sent: 05 July 2012 10:35
To: Alana Renner; Mike Granville; Lesley J Sewell; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Rod Ismay; Alwen Lyons
Subject: FW: Today's Meeting
----+1 Original Message-----
From: Ron Warmington [mailto:rwarming@aol.com]
sent: 04 July 2012 21:29
To: ‘Susan Crichton’; Simon Baker
Cc: ‘Ian Henderson’
Subject: FW: Today's Meeting
As reported verbally, a good meeting. Ian and I felt it went well. My feedback later in the afternoon,
from Janet Walker James' PA, is that they felt good about the meeting too.
as well as James and Janet... and Ian and myself... the following were
there:
Andrew Bridgen MP
Mike Wood MP
Tessa Munt MP
Mary Glindon MP
A representative of Andrew Garnier MP also attended.
POL-0106006
POL00107746
POL00107746
Oliver Letwin MP sent his apologies but wants to be closely involved going forward.
JA took the lead and welcomed us, summarising what we were there to address.
Nothing surprising here: they wanted to know how we came to be short-listed/selected for the work; what
we understood the scope to be; whether we were likely to carry out a one-sided, biased or inadequate job;
whether we expected to drill deep into Horizon; and to whom we expected to report. RW answered all those
questions.
JA stated that it was a pity that, having cleared it that the JFSA leader Alan Bates could attend, in the
end he was unable to do so at short notice.
3A clearly wanted to - and now wants to - get some buy-in from AB and seemed genuinely disappointed that
the whole thing now couldn't be buttoned up today. He asked whether RW would be prepared to come back
for a three-person meeting in his (JA's) office. RW of course offered to do that
Janet will arrange. Apparently, AB had commented along the lines that "this all seemed to be moving
rather too quickly. All agreed’ that that seemed a strange and inappropriate comment
Mike wood - initially bordering on hostile - challenged us on how the sample of cases had been selected.
RW answered that the sample was not yet finalised but that they (the MPs) had largely driven it. Mw
asked whether his constituent's case was included (don't know but don't think so as yet
will need to be... need the name). One or two (mainly MW and AB) pressed for a larger sample. We expect
them to call for that. RW said that it would be surprising if the sample of cases pushed forward by the
MPs would fail to surface to the reviewers instances of the sort of Horizon-induced shortages that have
been so publicly alleged if they are there to be found.
Some discussion on whether there could be bugs in the (or for that matter
any) system that could generate spurious cash shortages... or perhaps some central figure(s) milking off
funds and laying a trail of blame pointing to innocent others. Answer: hypothetically possible... we've
dealt with cases like that before. Near sighs of relief that we weren't trotting out the (clearly not
accepted) party line that the system was and is bug-free and above suspicion. This point seems to be
central: almost all of them seem to harbour suspicions that there is “something out there". They wanted
to be assured that we're genuinely independent, objective and have open minds on this point and that the
Po is asking us - and will allow us - to dig deep.
We carried out a reality check here, saying that we'd NOT been asked to dig deep into Horizon looking for
deeply-embedded bugs at the code level...
indeed, we'd not recommend that course of action (certainly not at this stage). Rather, we trust our
instincts and experience that a deep review of a sample of cases, focussing not on whether there had been
False Accounting but on IDENTIFYING THE UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSE OF THE DISCREPANCY, would without doubt
help us to formulate a recommendation as to whether some such deep digging would, later, be worthwhile.
MB said that the conclusion of the Case Review would probably provide them (the MPs) with an opportunity
to call for such a deep dive system review.
JA conceded that he was prepared to be convinced (he seemed to have a balanced, open attitude here) of
the guilt of his constituent(s). RW said that the term "guilt" needed, in his mind, to be clarified...
the Reviewers would pay little heed to convictions for False Accounting. What we would focus on would be
identifying the real cause of the losses;... and...
ideally, where the money went; whether it was stolen; by whom; and WHY. But we had to be realistic in
that we might never know - indeed the people in the office themselves may not know - the answers to those
key questions. To that end we will probably need to re-generate (using retained computer records
interviews, etc.) the most likely destiny of the missing funds and underlying root causes of the losses
The issue of whether some perpetrators’ (in respect of False Accounting) assertions that: “They were at
their wits end and had no viable alternative, given their distrust of - or absence of help from - the
Helpdesk", is also clearly pivotal to the MPs. They want to know whether any of those claims are
valid... and they clearly expect the Review to feed back to them on this point. They seem to suspect that
the way things have in the past worked (and the Contractual Terms) have led to a situation where some
sub-postmasters have received little or no real help in finding out what has gone wrong and where many of
them lack the skills/resources to get to the bottom of it unaided. Their suspicion here seems to be that
the PO may not care “since
(contractually) it's not its problem".
JA asked whether he would be given a draft copy of the Report (I think he meant at the same time as it
goes to PO Senior Management). We couldn't of course commit to that so for sure he'll ask about that.
He also stressed that, since leaks to the press (from Westminster) were sadly a fact of life, we'd need
to be very careful not to name any constituent in the Report.
In regard to AB and the JFSA, whilst JA clearly wants AB's buy-in, he doesn't want to give AB the
impression that he (AB) has power of veto over who carries out the Review, its scope and how it is to be
carried out.
The meeting concluded with JA confirming - on behalf of all present - that they are satisfied that 2nd
sight is a suitable choice and that it now remains to get that AB/JFSA concurrence. JA stated that the
big challenge here will be "to carry the sub-postmasters with us". Note from RW: that's not a big
challenge, it's a colossal one. It means we'd not only have to convince each of the (case-selected)
perpetrators that they'd been fairly dealt with by the courts and the PO but also (and without allowing
into the public domain case-specific details) we'd need to turn the tide of public opinion in the PO's
favour! Let's discuss!!!
Speak at tomorrow's 09:00 hrs call. Best Regards, Ron.
POL-0106006
POL00107746
POL00107746
POL-0106006