FUJ00152501 - ICL Pathway Quality Review Comment Sheet Version 3.0 - Network Banking Management of Prosecution Support re: Matthew Lenton
ICL Pathway
Quality Review Comment Sheet
FUJ00152501
FUJ00152501
Ref: PA/TEM/020
Version: 3.0
Date: 23-Jan-2001
Section A (1o be completed by Document Controller)
Document Title: Network Banking Management of Prosecution Support Item and Version Number: _I NB/PRO/003, Version 0.1
Document Item Type: Procedure Relevant Release Number: _I N/A
Document Date: 11" February 2002 Deadline For Comment: Friday 22nd February 2002
Document Originator: I Jane Bailey
Comments To Go To: Originator (& Pathway Document Controller) Comments received after this date will not necessarily be included
(Note: Non Contract Controlled Documents — Originator Only, Contract
Controlled Document ~ Originator & Pathway Document Controller)
Section B (1o be completed by Reviewer of document)
[Reviewer Name: [Jan Holmes [Date of Review: [12" February 2002 ]
Section C Please note that extra rows can be inserted to this table during completion.
No. I Page} Para Ge I Reviewers Comment Explanation Impact: Originators/Document Champions.
No. I No. Typo, High/Medium/ I Response to reviewers comments
- Negligible
General
1. Thave a bit of a problem with the title and scope of this process. What are
you proposing for non Network Banking prosecution support? Is there
another process or do we anticipate zero non-NBS prosecutions? Are there
any material differences in the approach to supporting NBS and non-NBS
prosecutions?
2. 7 1 I guess you've sort of dealt with it in the Introduction by suggesting that the
approach is the same for all services but this process was defined specifically
to meet NBS Requirements via Schedule NO1.
3. 7 Ll Ah, the tangles we get ourselves in.
4 [9 ]31 Tcan see them baulking at the rollover concept since they could conceivably
rollover more than ‘next years’ allowance and potentially disallow
themselves any current prosecutions.
5. 9 3.2 Does not make it explicitly clear that 1 Record Query = I of the 500 allowed
and that multiples RQs equals a faster usage of enquiries.
6. nl 4.1 Are you proposing to provide the full service for each request or is this a
sliding delivery based on reducing numbers?
7 {nu faa Pulling Tivoli Event Logs, HSH files and Non-Polling reports are three
separate retrievals from audit DLTs. And this is before you’ve pulled the
banking transactions themselves from the TMS DLT.
8. 16 [7 Do you not have to produce the standard Witness Statement when you
1
ICL Pathway
Quality Review Comment Sheet
Ref:
Version:
Date:
FUJ00152501
FUJ00152501
PA/TEM/020
3.0
23-Jan-2001
produce the initial audit data or are you working on the principle that you do
not produce a Witness Statement until you are going down the Litigation
Support branch.
You know that it is perfectly OK for an Outlet to be out of contact for up to
15 working days. The analysis of the NPR is merely an extra layer of
confidence. If the Outlet is shown to have been out of contact it will be
necessary to wheel out the standard explanation that this is OK. Probably a
bit of boilerplate text required.
10. I 18 7.2.3
This is lining yourself up for a heap of work. Better I would have thought to
analyse the Tivoli Event Logs only.
Tsn’t the 250 a number based on reducing requirements. This sentence
appears to limit it to 250.
12. I 19 7241
Graham, on 007007 Witness Statement, Tomy Utting advised me to remove
any parts of the Statement that I did not personally know. Specifically it was
some historical stuff about what existed in the Post Offices before Horizon.
Have you still got this in your standard WS or is it removed?
13. I 20 I 7.4
What’s that all about then?
Graham, I think if I were doing this I would separate the work into that
which you could reasonably fix a duration on and that which you could not.
For the fixed duration stuff you're on fairly safe ground when it comes to
turnaround times and you can be more certain about what you can achieve. I
wouldn’t have any inclusive time to deal with that over which you have no
control, ie Expert Witness stuff. My preference would be to declare this all
outside the normal process and subject to a CR on a case by case basis.
15. I 22 8.2
Similarly attendance in Court.
Ref my comments 15 and 16 above. I would see the last three items as all
falling uder the additional CR. I’m not sure what you would achieve in a year
if you only set 15 days aside for each one.
Nil returns are required
Sign this section when you receive the Originators response to your comments.
[agree to the Originator comments and on inclusion of these comments, am satisfied that the document will meet my requirements.
Reviewers Name/Signature:
Reviewer - Complete columns 2-6 of Section C & return this form to the Originator /& Document Controller if Contract Controlled Document)
1
2. Originator - Complete column 7 of Section C and return to Reviewer
3.
Reviewer - When agreement reached with Originator, sign off and return to Originator (& Document Controller if Contract Controlled Document)
Date;