FUJ00155527
FUJ00155527
ICL Pathway Forest Road Feltham Middlesex TW13 7EJ 4 Cl
Auip://www.iel.com a Fujitsu company
\
Charles Leighton, \\ \ ~ 6" February 2001
Internal Crime Manager, \
Post Office Network,
PON Security, se
4" Floor,
Impact House,
2 Edridge Road,
Croydon CR9 IPJ
Dear Charles
WITNESS STATEMENT REQUEST
1am writing to respond to the exchange of emails between yourself and Graham Hooper
recently re your request for the provision of witness statements.
I believe that the relevant provision is Requirement 829/1 which states:
“The CONTRACTOR shall ensure that all relevant information produced by the POCL
Service Infrastructure at the request of POCL shall be evidentially admissible and capable of
certification in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, the
Police and Criminal Evidence (Northem Ireland) Order 1989 and equivalent legislation
covering Scotland.”
My concern is that POCL sees this requirement as an open ended obligation on Pathway to
produce information related “witness statements” at POCL’s request. This is not how we see
it. The requirement is that relevant information produced by the Horizon system at POCL’s
request be admissible evidence in Court (which so far as such information in itself can be, it
is) and capable of certification in accordance with PACE (or equivalent in Northern Ireland
and Scotland). As you are no doubt aware, the relevant sections of PACE (s69 and s70) were
repealed by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which came into force on 14
April 2000.
We have made our position with respect to requirement 829 clear on a number of occasions.
However, given that you seem surprised by the stance taken by Graham Hooper, it may be of
assistance if I set out some of the background. The issue of witness statements was discussed
in meetings between Barry Proctor (then our Security Manager), Bob Martin and Paul Harvey
in July 1999. It was made clear in those meetings that Pathway did not consider the
production of witness statements to be included in the scope of the requirement. An
Acceptance Incidence (370) was raised by POCL (Bob Booth) on 23” July 1999 and a
clearance action for this incident was agreed as follows:
‘Pathway will provide PACE statements as necessary to support a fraud prosecution.
Pathway will undertake the work required to produce draft witness statements when POCL
have raised an appropriate Change Request, as indicated in the letter from Barry Proctor to
ICL Pathway Lid Registered in England no 3011561 Registered! office 26 Finsbury Square London EC2A 1SL.
FUJ00155527
FUJ00155527
continuation page 2
Paul Harvey dated 8" July 1999. The reason why this is necessary is because Pathway has no
contractual obligation to provide POCL with any evidence to support a prosecution’.
The statutory requirement for PACE statements and certification no longer exists (as above).
POCL has never submitted the required Change Request hence my negative response to your
request to Graham Hooper for draft witness statements. In answer to your query as to what
change could be requested, the Change Request would either be for a particular statement
required by POCL, or (which would appear the more sensible option) to change Requirement
829 such that it incorporates a more general obligation to produce witness statements. Any
such Change Request would be subject to impact assessment and costing in the usual way.
As things happened, Acceptance Incident 370 was not closed on the basis of the clearance
action referred to above. It was closed instead, without concession by Pathway, on the basis
of agreement between POCL and Pathway concerning access to audit information. The
background to the audit information agreement (as you are probably aware) is that during the
first few months of 2000 there was discussion and correspondence about the requirement to
produce audit information to support investigations, This culminated in agreement in
principle being reached at a meeting on.29" March 2000 that Pathway would provide up to 50
audit data extractions per annum for audit and security investigation purposes, with a
maximum of 7 in any calendar month. The basis of agreement was described in more detail
in my letter of 24" May 2000 to Keith Baines and confirmed subsequently in connection with
closure of Acceptance Incident 370 in September 2000 (see documents attached). Pathway
has been providing access to audit information in accordance with the agreed limits and other
matters set out in that letter [in relation to which, by way of further confirmation of the agreed
arrangement, Pathway will raise a CCN].
I trust that the above makes Pathway’s contractual position clear. In accordance with your
email to Graham Hooper of 10" January stating that you ‘would be happy to agree to accept
the cost to produce the Statements on a ‘Without Prejudice subject to Contract! basis at this
time, pending the outcome of Commercial discussions.’, Pathway is willing to provide
witness statements. However, I emphasise that this is without prejudice to the above position
and Pathway does not accept that it is contractually obliged to do so.
Yours sincerely
Martyn Bennett
Quality Director
ICL Pathway .
Ce:
Graham Hooper