FUJ00175066
FUJ00175066
From: O'driscoll lan[/O=EXCHANGE/OU=ADMINGROUP1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ODRISCOLLI]
Sent: Fri 03/10/2014 11:02:07 AM (UTC)
To: Harvey Michaelf
Ce: Davids: New:
Pete; __ GRO Maciean Dannyt Davies
Clive! Bell Gavinf._
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act Request re: Second Sight Part Two Report - Subject to Legal
Privilege
Mike
I raised this on calls with Michael Keegan, Stephen Cox, David Roberts, David Jones and Helen Lamb this morning.
There is no dissent to taking Option 1.
Regards
fan
Jan O'Driscoll
VP, Head of Legal, Commercial & Assurance UK&l
Fujitsu
22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW
Web: uk.fujitsu.com
I £I¥in/e)
Fujitsu Forum 2014
Human Centric Innovation
November 18 - 20, IQM Munich
hw Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
From: Harvey Michael
Sent: 03 October 2014 08:23
To: O'driscoll lan
Cc: Davidson James; Newsome Pete; Maclean Danny; Davies Clive; Bell Gavin
Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act Request re: Second Sight Part Two Report - Subject to Legal Privilege
lan,
As discussed last night, Post Office have contacted us regarding a FOI request they have had re the Second Sight
report. Their lawyer (Rodric) also rang me and his voicemail indicates that POL is looking for ways to avoid
disclosure. The only argument is that we could have is that the disclosure would be “commercially sensitive”. In
claim this we would need to show the report comprises:
{@) trade secrets of a person other than the requester concemed,
(b) financial, commercial, scientific or technical or other information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in a material financial loss or gain to the person to
‘whom the information relates, or could prejudice the competitive position of that person in the conduct of his or her profession or business or otherwise in his or her occupation, or
(©) information whose disclosure could prejudice the conduct or outcome of contractual or other negotiations of the person to whom the information relates.
FUJ00175066
FUJ00175066
There are two possible options
1-
The SS report is more damaging to POL than to us. Whilst the report does include a “not fit for purpose”
erroneous statement (which could damage us) this is not commercially sensitive information. The report is
more damaging for POL as it makes a number of negative statements about them. However, if we were to
conclude it was not commercially sensitive I do believe we should insist that our response (and POLs) are
disclosed too to ensure a fair reflection is disclosed. I attach the draft response from POL and the our
response (note POL combined these but I don’t have that latest position). The response from POL is very
positive about Horizon and makes it clear that they believe that the Horizon system is robust and “fit for
purpose”.
lf we support POL in arguing that this report is commercially sensitive then we are saying that the Horizon
system is commercially sensitive to Fujitsu and/or POL. I struggle to see how just because it is negative on
POL and makes erroneous statements re us that we can argue this point. One knock on effect is that if it is
commercially sensitive to Fujitsu (and POL accept it) then this logically means that they could not disclose
similar information to other bidders on the FO Tower.
1am minded to go with option 1 and request that POL disclose the “total story” rather than just the report. This may
have the inadvertent positive result of POL publicly accepting the strength of the Horizon system. I will draft an
appropriate response to POL.
Note, both the SS report and POL’s response is disclosed under legal privilege and as such it is disclosed to you all only
on the basis of validating which option you feel is valid. Please do not forward!
Kind regards,
Mike
Michael Harvey
Commercial Director
Commercial, Legal & Assurance
Fujitsu
22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW
Tel,
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com
Fujitsu is proud to partner with Shelter, the housing and homeless charity
Reshaping ICT, Reshaping Business in partnership with FT.com
hv Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
From: Rodric William:
GRO
Sent: 02 October 2014 12:22
To: Harvey Michael
FUJ00175066
FUJ00175066
Cc: Davidson James; Andy Holt
Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request re: Second Sight Part Two Report - Subject to Legal Privilege
Hi Michael,
A request has been made to us under the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of the Second Sight “Part Two”
Report.
To assist us assess whether the Report could be withheld under section 43 of the Act (commercial interests), could
Fujitsu please let us know whether disclosure of the Report would be likely to prejudice Fujitsu’s commercial interests,
and if so, how?
Please give me a call if you would like to discuss.
Kind regards, Rodric
Rodric Williams I Litigation Lawyer
® 148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
@ Post Office stories
@postofficenews
JE III SI III III II III II III IIT I III I DIO ASI ADI ISS SIS SOS IOS AIS SOSA
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views
or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.