POL00191252
POL00191252
From: Hugh Flemington[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HUGH. FLEMINGTON14106A9A-9886-403D-
BF5B-E08821F432B3]
Sent: Sun 07/07/201
To: Susan Crichton
Subject: RE: Proposed way forward
Past cases — Legal Case Review
In light of the SS interim report
Our external criminal specialist lawyers will be advising on us on the implications of the Second Sight Interim Review,
including whether or not it has implications for past convictions. This may mean that we contact some people who
have been convicted in the past, but we need to wait for this key advice. In order to obtain this key piece of advice
they will need to review our past cases.
Initially they are looking at those going back for the last 18months to two years. [We shouldn’t just focus on
Separation — we should go back to when e.g. the b14 anomaly first appeared] [We need to consider whether we go
back further to PV’s point]
{Need to give PV clarity on how many false accounting cases have we taken.]
Completing the SS review to a Final Report
There is a need to look at the remaining past cases with JFSA (and MPs if they wish) to see if either further themes or
new evidence emerge. WHO DOES THIS? SS or someone else? You can:
- Continue with SS
- Appoint PWC as a new SS
- Don’t have an independent reviewer — in which case the risk is you have PO and JFSA etc slugging it out IF we
can’t reach agreement.....and the process then doesn’t conclude — messy etc
New processes we can identify NOW:
1. [Setting up of a review (chaired by PB/MO'C type) again via joint working between PO and JFSA, to determine
how an independent safety net business process might be introduced ie., a commitment to an independent
adjudicator or (non-statutory) ombudsman and the clear intention to agree scope and ToR.] NOT SURE HOW
WE CAN DO THIS. DO THEY IN EFFECT BECOME A GATEKEEPER TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE PROSECUTE
SOMEONE?
2. Working Party to
a. start exploring the SS (8) themes for improvement (can we get less than 8?) and agrees how they can
be implemented.
b. Help establish the Branch Forum User Group.
c. [Possibly review the findings of the Legal Case Review — the LCR may simply result in us
communicating to those convicted in some cases and then it’s up to them to go to the Court of
Appeal. We don’t have the power to quash convictions presumably? What I mean is that there may
not be anything for the Working Party to do on this]
POL00191252
POL00191252
3. [spare].
Ongoing — The Branch Forum User Group
This will ensure ongoing independent involvement of Spmrs/(inc JFSA if they would like) to ensure the business listens
to and acts upon issues as they arise; and as importantly, consults users on future systems planning and changes.
Hugh Flemington I Head of Legal
iC) 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
® GRO
@® t
(} hugh. flemingtorg
® Post Office stories
eS
® @postofficenews
From: Susan Crichton
Sent: 07 July 2013 09:38
To: Hugh Flemington
Subject: Fw: Proposed way forward
Read from the bottom up!
From: Lesley J Sewell
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 08:18 AM
To: Paula Vennells
Cc: Martin Edwards; Mark R Davies; Alwen Lyons; Susan Crichton
Subject: Re: Proposed way forward
Paula
Just a couple of thoughts.
If we state that we will review the cases since Separation, that implies that there are material findings in the SS review
and leaves us open to challenge against all cases. It may be better to offer in the spirit of the review and how we
have listened to those who have been affected, and how we want to change our business.
This is the delicate line we are balancing and from memory Susan quoted more that 500 cases in the last 10 years. It
may be an option to allow SPMRs to come forward to request a review.
POL00191252
POL00191252
I agree on the points around the working group and user group. A clear ToR for the WG will ensure that that is closed
down whilst we start to establish the User Group. We also need to bring Kevin in on our thinking and how this will
work with/alongside the engagement we already have with the NFSP.
Lesley
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Jul 2013, at 22:46, "Paula Vennellsi_
Hi, thank you for the inputs today. Susan I need your thoughts on the note below especially 1) and 2)
please and the questions at the end of the mail.
I think we have the following which is a variant:
1) a working party over the next three/four months. This comprises PO working collaboratively with the
JFSA and does three things:
. Firstly explores the SS (8) themes for improvement (can we get less than 8?) and agrees how they can
be implemented.
Secondly, looks at the remaining past cases with JFSA (and MPs if they wish) to see if either further
themes or new evidence emerge.
. Thirdly, our external lawyers review all prosecutions in the past 12/18 months since PO has been
independent of RM, in the light of the SS findings. The JFSA/PO working group reviews the findings.
[Why would they not review all cases of false accounting, eg., over the last 5-10 years, especially where
the amounts have been 'small'? I assume ‘large’ amounts would be less likely to get away with saying
they were muddle-headed and not helped? But could we review all? It is the false accounting charge JA
was most concerned about.]
Does the working party update JA in the autumn?
2) setting up of a review (chaired by PB/MO'C type) again via joint working between PO and JFSA, to
determine how an independent safety net might be introduced ie., a commitment to an independent
adjudicator or (non-statutory) ombudsman and the clear intention to agree scope and ToR.
3) the future introduction of an ongoing branch user group, once the working party has completed it's
task. This will ensure ongoing independent involvement of Spmrs/(inc JFSA if they would like) to ensure
the business listens to and acts upon issues as they arise; and as importantly, consults users on future
systems planning and changes.
[4) a statement that although the system has been proved to have no systemic issues, and our training,
support processes and helplines have worked for most of the 50-60000 colleagues over the past decade,
we are nonetheless genuinely sorry that some of our Spmrs, who were struggling did not feel we offered
them sufficient help and support when they needed it. And that we are grateful to JFSA and JA for
highlighting the issues. Many are historic and already improved but we are always open to new ways to
improve how we do business to ensure the PO stays as trusted and effective in its communities as it ever
was.]
Last thought: if we can draft this into something I could send to Alan Bates ‘in confidence’, it would get
us to a better place in agreeing the press statement and way through with JA on Monday. Could Martin
try and corral views into a draft by Sunday early pm? The more I speak with him the better I feel it will
be.
Susan, would we ever ask the lawyers to consider reviewing past prosecutions? Is that what we are
POL00191252
POL00191252
talking about in 1) above but simply not using the terms? If not, why would it be different? Of our 500
prosecutions, how many are false accounting? (For clarity these are open questions - just want to know
the answers, not an indication that I want us to do so.)
Thanks, Paula
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Jul 2013, at 21:08, "Martin Edwards" wrote:
Hmm, the boundaries between these groups are getting quite blurred and confusing (at
least in my mind!).
I thought the focus of the working group involving the JFSA would be primarily thematic
(i.e. the 8 or so themes which emerged from the SS process) - rather than focussing on
resolving specific cases, which we would pick up through the seperate 1:1 briefings with
MPs. The description below appears to shift it more towards the latter. Perhaps this is an
academic distinction which we can't sustain in practice, but it certainly feels like safer
territory to have the JFSA focussing on themes to do with training and support (which
would then morph into the branch user forum) rather than individual cases...
Or have I misunderstood?
We also need to think about how the review of past cases by our external lawyers plays
into the messaging (if at all). Certainly not something we would put in our proactive media
statement I would have thought, but would we refer to this in meetings as an avenue if
pushed by MPs or the JFSA?
Martin
Martin Edwards
Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive
I think that is the working group (number 2 below).
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Jul 2013, at 17:53, "Alwen Lyons
wrote:
I think the only thing that is missing from James' agenda maybe
not Alan's is what we do about past cases to scorch the
suggestion os unfair convictions
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons
Company Secretary
Sent from Blackberry
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 04:46 PM
To: Paula Vennells
Cc: Martin Edwards; Mark R Davies; Lesley J Sewell; Susan
Crichton; Alwen Lyons; Theresa Iles:
Subject: Re: Proposed way forward
Hi Paula
I think this points to the need for our package of measures to
include two and possibly three new initiatives:
1. A Branch User Forum - for existing users to share views,
discuss issues, examine processes etc.. Chaired by Exco and
reporting to Exco. But this doesn't cover historic issues (ie the
JFSA and MP cases) so we could also have (2)
2. A working party, to use Alan's phrase, to complete the MP
and JFSA cases. This could "take over" the Second Sight review
(perhaps involving them but perhaps not as they have
effectively "cleared" Horizon, the remit of their inquiry). This
would involve the JFSA and us working collaboratively on the
remaining cases. We might wish to include an external party in
this too (a PWC?). This is the area of greatest risk - looking back
at historic cases which have gone through the courts. But it is
also completing the job we asked SS to do.
3. A review by a Mike o Connor or Patrick Burns figure to
consider potential independent levers which could be
developed to give SPMRs a means of independent adjudication
or (non statutory) ombudsman.
This package, it feels to me, covers all bases. It looks ahead to fix
internal issues and create independent balancing view, but it
also completes the review and has the potential for doing so
with SS playing a different, or no, role.
It is also a compelling package for media, which handled
carefully, could contain the story.
Grateful for views.
Mark
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Jul 2013, at 10:35, "Paula Vennells"
Paula
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
POL00191252
POL00191252
Date: 6 July 2013 10:35:03 BST
To: Alan Bates
Alan, thank you for the note. Yes, I
thought the meeting with James was
positive too. My main concern is still
how we manage the publicity, to
avoid - as you said - it ‘going
ballistic’.
We had a useful conversation re a
statement from James with quotes
from you and me, or possible joint
statement. And agreed we would
pick up again on Monday.
Ours is now bring re-worked in the
light of that and as we liaise with SS
over the weekend on some changes
to the report where it is factually
inaccurate. I am hopeful these will be
addressed.
Once I have a final draft, I would be
happy to send across to you.
It would be good to meet on
Monday. And as I haven't met Kay,
then I would be happy to extend the
meeting to include her and I would
bring Alwen Lyons, who is our
Company Secretary - Alwen has been
the key lead on the liaison with
James' office.
In the meantime, I hope you enjoy
the glorious weather - at last!
Paula
Ps. You were on my list to call today
but I imagine this email exchange is
sufficient now? However, if you
would like to speak at any time, don't
hesitate to text me.
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Jul 2013, at 09:51, "Alan Bates"
wrote:
Hello Paula
POL00191252
POL00191252
I understand the
meeting with James
Arbuthnot went well on
Friday and I believe he
will be discussing his
views with me on
Monday morning.
I am sure you will agree
that it is important that
we have even an
outline document of
the proposed way
forward we have
discussed, before the
MPs' meeting. As soon
as it is available, I
would appreciate
seeing your version of
what is proposed,
hopefully amended to
address the comment
below.
Looking through my
notes from our last
conversation, there is
an early item of
concern, that being the
name of the panel
which you referred to
as the ‘user group’.
Whilst I can appreciate
you want such a group
to continue on into the
future, at which time
such a name may be
suitable. Initially, and
whilst it is also looking
at the issues
surrounding the report
and the cases, possibly
‘task group' or 'working
party' might be more
accurate, as technically,
the bulk of JFSA are ex
users, and others will
no doubt pick up on the
name. I could offer
‘review board’, but I
could see that might
not be acceptable.
POL00191252
POL00191252
POL00191252
POL00191252
Regarding Monday 8",
do you still want to
meet? If we do meet,
and others are to
attend, I would like Kay
Linnell, who has been
working with us for the
last year, to accompany
me. With travel
arrangement to finalise,
I would appreciate a
response to that point
as soon as you are able
to let me know.
Regards
Alan