POL00294843
POL00294843
From: Rod Ismay[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ROD.ISMAYB8406224-7AE7-4FF 1-B8E6-
F1A8E506F2E5]
Sent: Thur 22/09/2011 11:54:11 AM (UTC)
To: Hayley Fowelll,
Subject: FW: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon - latest draft response?
Hi Hayley — here’s the suggestion I made to David and Mike. I only emailed them and I suspect from Shane's reply
that he had not seen this.
Please do let me know whether anything has now been sent back and what that final version was. Our legal teams
had input to it.
Many thanks, Rod
The Post Office is fully confident in the Horizon computer system operating in its branches. This accounting system,
and the processes around it, enable our branches to maintain accurate and reliable accounts in all respects, and this
has been consistently upheld when cases have gone to court.
Rod Ismay
Head of Product & Branch Accounting, Finance, Post Office Ltd
Ik, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 1PF
with divert to mobile
From: Emily B Springford
Sent: 22 September 2011 10:16
To: Rod Ismay
Cc: Rebekah Mantle
Subject: FW: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon
Hi Rod,
Just to confirm, following your conversation with Rebekah yesterday about the Cleveley’s case, that there was no
judicial comment or ruling about Horizon in that case — we simply had to settle because Fujitsu did not provide us with
the necessary documentation. Therefore we do not believe that this undermines the statement suggested.
Kind regards
Emily Springford
Principal Lawyer - Dispute Resolution
First Floor, 35-50 Rathbone Place
London W1T 1HQ
From: Emily B Springford
Sent: 22 September 2011 10:08
To: David Simpson; Hayley Fowell
Cc: Rebekah Mantle; Mike Granville; Rod Ismay; Susan Crichton
Subject: RE: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon
Hi David, Hayley,
I've spoken to Mandy this morning and she confirmed that there has not been any Court decision which accepted
allegations of flaws in Horizon.
As I mentioned to Hayley, there was one case, Darlington, in which the Horizon records were illegible: therefore we
were unable to prove our loss. The Judge refused to allow us an opportunity to go back to Court and adduce further
POL00294843
POL00294843
evidence. This was not a criticism of Horizon’s integrity as such, although it was reported in this way by sections of the
media.
Therefore, we would be comfortable with the following response:
The Post Office is fully confident in the Horizon computer system operating in its branches. This accounting system,
and the processes around it, enable our branches to maintain accurate and reliable accounts in all respects, and this
has been consistently upheld when cases have gone to court.
Kind regards
Emily Springford
Principal
Postline!
Mobex’.
ispute Resolution
First Floor, 35-50 Rathbone Place
London W1T 1HQ
From: David Simpson
Sent: 21 September 2011 17:59
To: Emily B Springford
Cc: Rebekah Mantle; Mike Granville; Rod Ismay; Hayley Fowell; Susan Crichton
Subject: RE: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon
Emily — many thanks for your note. We've not been chased this afternoon by Private
Eye for a response so I think it’s worth one final check tomorrow morning as early as
possible with Alison Bolsover. It is certainly a powerful line to use if we can say the
courts have consistently upheld POL’s view.
If there us any further information, could you please copy any email to my colleague
Hayley (above) as I have a meeting I must go to tomorrow morning at 10am.
Regards,
David
From: Emily B Springford
Sent: 21 September 2011 17:46
To: David Simpson
Cc: Rebekah Mantle
Subject: FW: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon
Hi David,
Rebekah and I have spoken about this and we are happy with Rod's wording if the word “vindicated” is replaced by
“upheld” — we would like to use your wording but we would need Alison Bolsover to confirm that there have not been
any such rulings or decisions; we don’t want to qualify it by saying “we are not aware” as it creates the impression that
we may not have complete knowledge of past cases. Alison has left for the day, so we think it would be better to use
Rob's wording in this instance.
Kind regards
Emily Springford
Principal L; ute Resolution
POL00294843
POL00294843
First Floor, 35-50 Rathbone Place
London W1T 1HQ
From: David Simpson
Sent: 21 September 2011 16:53
To: Rebekah Mantle
Subject: FW: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon
From: Rod Ismay
Sent: 21 September 2011 16:49
To: David Simpson; Mike Granville
Subject: RE: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon
What about:
‘The Post Office is fully confident in the Horizon computer system operating in its branches. This accounting system,
and the processes around it, enable our branches to maintain accurate and reliable accounts in all respects, and this
has been consistently vindicated when cases have gone to court’
Thanks, Rod
Rod Ismay
Head of Product & Branch Accounting, Finance, Post Office Ltd
No 1 Future Walk, West Bars, Chesterfield, S49 1PF
m iwith divert to mobile
From: David Simpson
Sent: 21 September 2011 16:41
To: Mike Granville; Hayley Fowell; Susan Crichton; Rebekah Mantle
Cc: Mike Young; Kevin Gilliland; Sue Huggins; Rod Ismay; Paula Vennells; Chris M Day; Shane O'Riordain
Subject: RE: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon
Mike, many thanks for your response. I’m happy to keep our reply to Private Eye short
and tight. However, we do need to say something brief about the fact that the courts
have upheld POL’s view of Horizon and have convicted a number of people in regard
to serious crimes.
Can we not, therefore, add the additional bullet point I suggested — or at least, a
variation on it?
David
There have been a number of court cases — involving a tiny fraction of the Post Office network -
when claims and assertions against the integrity of the Horizon system have been made. We are
not aware of a single instance of a court ruling or decision accepting such assertions or
challenges.
From: Mike Granville
Sent: 21 September 2011 14:30
To: Hayley Fowell; Susan Crichton; Rebekah Mantle; David Simpson
POL00294843
POL00294843
Cc: Mike Young; Kevin Gilliland; Sue Huggins; Rod Ismay; Paula Vennells; Chris M Day
Subject: FW: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon
Importance: High
Hayley,
Further to our conversation, and having spoken about this with Susan Crichton — we think that, as the Private Eye
journalist at this stage has not asked specific questions to which we can give a specific response, the best course of
action may be to keep to a simple high level response. This would be rather than going through all the bullets used last
time (which were put together with reference to the cases that were being then cited by the BBC — so for example we
had a bullet about training because that was a point that had been raised).
So, pending any specific questions, we wonder whether we should just say;
‘The Post Office is fully confident in the Horizon computer system operating in its branches. This accounting system,
and the processes around it, enable our branches to maintain accurate and reliable accounts in all respects’
I'm copying this note around to various parties here in POL — so that they can see that this issue is potentially being
raised again in the media.
Thanks
Mike
From: Hayley Fowell
Sent: 20 September 2011 16:55
To: Susan Crichton; Rebekah Mantle
Cc: Mike Granville; David Simpson
Subject: Private Eye inquiry - Horizon
Importance: High
Susan/ Rebekah,
We've received a press inquiry from Private Eye about the Horizon system. The journalist has been doing quite a bit
of research speaking to SPMs who have been accused of fraud and their claims that the system is faulty etc. He is
now looking for the Post Office’s side of the story.
I have pasted below the statement we have been using for inquiries — I need to check this is still relevant. I have
pasted an additional line we could include to strengthen our position.
I’m sure you are aware of Private Eye as a satirical magazine, but we need to treat this carefully as they have a history
of serious campaigning on behalf of individuals. It’s also widely read by journalists so could provoke further interest in
this issue.
Please can you review the statement and get back me ASAP. The deadline is tomorrow lunchtime.
Thanks,
Hayley
Hayley Fowell
Senior External Relations Manager
Royal Mail Group
100 Victoria Embankment
LONDON
EC4YOHQ
t
Post Office Statement
+ The Post Office is fully confident that the Horizon computer system in its branches, and all
POL00294843
POL00294843
the accounting processes around it, are absolutely accurate and reliable at all times.
+ The Horizon system has been subjected to full, independently-assured, robust testing
procedures. The Horizon information security processes meet the relevant industry standards
which apply to such organisations as banks and building societies.
+ Subpostmasters are given fully appropriate training, typically including classroom training
and a further time on site under close supervision and guidance from a Post Office manager.
Subpostmasters can also ring a dedicated helpline for advice.
+ The Horizon system has operated successfully for over 10 years across the Post Office
network, which currently stands at more than 11,500 branches.
+ The National Federation of Subpostmasters, which vigorously represents the views and
interests of subpostmasters around the entire country, has gone on record on a number of
occasions to express its full confidence in the accuracy and robustness of the Horizon
system.
+ The Horizon system provides detailed records of every transaction, no matter how small or
large, in any individual Post Office branch. Separate records of all key strokes in the system
are stored in a tamper-proof way..
+ The Post Office handles large sums of public money as well as the money entrusted to it by
the 20 million people who visit our branches each week. The Post Office rightly makes every
effort and takes all reasonable steps to protect the money in its care.
ADDITIONAL MESSAGE
There have been a number of court cases — involving a tiny fraction of the Post Office network -
when claims and assertions against the integrity of the Horizon system have been made. We are
not aware of a single instance of a court ruling or decision accepting such assertions or
challenges.