FUJ00156876
FUJ00156876
From: Lamb Helen[/O=EXCHANGE/OU=ADMINGROUP1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ROBINSONH]
Sent: Wed 16/10/2013 2:47:55 PM (UTC)
To:
Ce: _d; Davidson
Bell Gavin:
Subject: I Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Second Sight and expert determination
Just spoken with Lesley, she didn't have a firm eta but is going to take a view and get back to us. My guess
would be, she would be happy for us to push back on areas that don't make sense and maybe have a workshop to
go through them.
Sent from my iPhone
All,
I have just got off the phone with Roderick from Post Office. It would appear that they are pressing
ahead with wanting the Expert “view”. They appear to have two persons in mind.
I have asked for the Terms of Reference for the Expert (and also the legal opinion from Cartwright King
(this latter one I may not get)). Once I have them I will share and we will need a meeting to discuss what
we do next. Given Lesley’s initial concerns about this process it would be useful to understand where
she is with this and whether she will support us if we push back / amend the terms?
I have also asked for the terms of reference for the Mediation Process.
Kind regards,
Mike
From: Harvey Michael
Sent: 19 September 2013 10:52
To: Newsome Pete; Davidson James; Bell Gavin
Cc: Lamb Helen
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - Summary of meeting with Post Office
All
Please find below my summary of the meeting that Helen and I had with Post Office regarding providing
support with respect to the Mediation Process and others arising as a result of the Second Sight report.
Any questions, please give me a call. Otherwise at some stage we will need to discuss how what we
need to do to deliver to their requirements.
Kind regards,
Mike
Attendees
Lesley Sewell Helen Lamb
Susan Crichton Mike Harvey
Andy Holt
FUJ00156876
FUJ00156876
Internal Comment
Action
1 POL have implemented a mediation process
for any claims/issues Sub-Postmasters may
have with regard to claimed lost
transactions/discrepancies
Note SC herself said
that claims were limited
to 7 years but that they
were accepting those
from earlier subject to
determining what data
they actually had.
AH to send ToR for
Mediation Process
(publicly available
document)
2 The Mediation Process will have an
independent chair and Sub-PMs will have
access to external support funded by POL.
3 This process is separate from the legal
process
4 POL require Fujitsu to assist this process by
providing the data etc (as per current
Horizon Prosection support processes).
However, it would be of value if we could
provide explanatory reports too (pitched at
the Sub-PMs technical level to explain the
data etc. For example, if we say X could not
happen because the two systems were
running on separate Network Protocols,
explain in layman’s language what that
This could be something
we ask for James’
assistance with
developing.
Fujitsu will develop this
as requested as part of
the mediation process.
In order to gain
consistency of approach
we suggest that this is
managed as a Project
and it may be
something that James
Davidson could manage
their systems and aspects of the Horizon
system, for example POL may want changes
to the audit log/roll back process in order to
make it eaiser for Sub-PM’s to
use/understanding
we are clear that we
have delivered the
services and as such any
changes are charegable.
AH indicated there are
currently 12 or so
changes they may
request.
means) in order to ensure a
good bridge between
the technical and
layman’s explanations.
5 POL may be looking at improvements to We need to ensure that I AH to liase with Pete
Newsome with respect
to the changes that POL
may request.
6 POL detailed that they have nearly
completed a review of the Criminal Cases
(about 150 so far). Of these they have
flagged 9 as potentially having an issue in
light of the Second Sight report.
7 POL’s criminal barrister from Cartwright
King solicitors has flagged a discrepancy
I disagree that the
Expert is “tainted” but
SC to determine
whether she can share
FUJ00156876
FUJ00156876
between the evidence given in court and the
information provided as part of the Second
Sight audit. This could mean that the
relevant Expert is “tainted”.
ultimately there is little
point challenging it as
we agree it may bea
sensible time to
transition to anew
expert to ensure
continuity of service
the report with Fujitsu
(MH)
8 POL looking for some means of providing an
“independent” witness/expert with respect
to future criminal cases. This may be an
academic.
MH pointed out concerns he had about how
viable such an approach would be with
respect to past transactions.
We need to remember
this is all about data
integrity and as such I
am of the view that we
remain best placed to
provide the data and
give a context/
explanation as to where
is came from and any
factors affecting it.
POL have/are having
conversations with
Imperial College re the
“academic”.
LS has concerns
regarding the use of an
academic /
independent expert but
for her it depends on
sight of the ToR.
SC to share with MH the
proposed ToR for an
“independent expert”
for our
comment/review.
SC indicated she may
also request MH attend
a call with Counsel on
Friday afternoon
9 POL flagged that Counsel is concerned
regarding the change of data audit system.
HL and MH explained that the process will
be independently checked throughout the
process and nothing will be done with POL’s
agreement
Note LS stated she did
not have any concerns
regarding this process
Once the paper’s are
completed, Fujitsu to
present them to POL
(including Counsel).
Michael Harvey
Commercial Director and Solicitor
Fujitsu
22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW
Mob;f GRO!
Emai
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com
A Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?