FUJ00154881
FUJ00154881
Sent: Fri 12/02/2010 2:
To: Thomas Penny”
12 PM (UTC)
Cc: Ss Pst Office_Security) eee GRO enna
janem.owefss~<CGRRO i
Subject: Re: West Byfleet
Attachment: ATT4994742.txt
Penny, this follows on from my previous email.
I'm hoping the detail Jon is requesting below is something you can do, which is outside the scope that our lawyers are dealing with
in respect of expert witness statements etc.
I'm ot I IRRELEVANT I, so would you please respond to Jon please and cc the rest of us in. Cheers
Mark Dinsdale
Security Programme Manager
Security Team, Post Office Ltd
Post Office Ltd, Security Team, Royal Mail, 3rd Floor, Clippers House, Clippers Quay, Salford, M50 3NW
(preferred contact method)
PRINT
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorised
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact me by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
John Longman
12/02/2010 13:22 To: Mark Dinsdale/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE.
cc
Subject: West Byfleet
Mark
Following the third request for disclosure from the defence there are still outstanding points that fujitsu can only answer. I list
them as follows in blue.
In essence Andy Dunks needs to produce a further statement, similar to his one of 29th January in which he details the calls
logged by HSH from West Byfleet for the period 1st January 2005 to 30th June 2005.
FUJ00154881
FUJ00154881
A statement needs to be produced from fujitsu explaining why the HSH calls made by West Byfleet were all of a routine nature if
indeed this is the case and to confirm that other Post Offices made similar HSH requests.
6) a) (REF ANDY DUNKS STATEMENT) We repeat our non-acceptance that the calls were of a
routine nature. We asked for a copy of the log of all the calls made for a period from 6 months prior to our client
taking over to the present day — the additional time limit either side to allow for comparison with calls made
before and after our client’s tenure as sub-postmistress. You have supplied us with a Fujitsu employee’s
overview of the calls made. Please comply with the request.
b) The calls referred to in Andrew Dunk’s statement make reference to issues with touch screens requiring
recalibration, problems with the network, printer and pin terminal and the number of times the system requires re-
booting. In light of Dunk’s assertions that all the calls from West Byfleet are of a routine nature, we assume
similar calls are frequently received from other Post Offices. Please confirm that this is the case. If not, please
provide an explanation as to why these calls are deemed to be of a routine nature, which appears to be the basis
on which you have failed to date to provide us with the call logs.
12) We asked for details of the business testing carried out on Horizon not for an adjective describing its quality.
(Original response was "Horizon has undergone stringent testing before it was installed." Please comply with the request.
20) Please provide full disclosure of the problems with the Horizon system that were acknowledged to exist in
Callender Square, Falkirk as referred to in paragraph 23 of the Castleton judgment.
Points 12 & 20 also need to be addressed by Fujitsu.
Mark - Could you communicate this request to Fujitsu please which is urgent.
Regards,
Jon Longrran
Security Advisor,
Post Office Ltd, National Sequrity Tearn
OFFICE ADDRESS: Post Office Investigation Dept, Watford MLO, Ascot Road, Watford, WD18 BAA
LAND LINE PHONE: Crane EV itied n45 613
2 3 4004
Confidential information: This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may contain @&
¥}—_jopniongrrani
confidentialand privileged information, Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited,
if you are not the intended recipient, please contact me by reply e-mailand destroy all copies of the original message.
?? Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail