FUJ00203794
FUJ00203794
From: BARKER David <"
Sent: Tue 02/04/2019 1
To: "pete.newsome(
"Legal.Defencet_
Ce: DURKIN Beth ¢0 "GRO
Subject: RE: Thoughts on the trial so far [PM-AC.FID3854255]
Pete
Maybe what the witnesses need in future is (1) someone on the Fujitsu side (or PM) to go through their evidence with
them, just to be sure that they are 100% certain of all of the factual content, and (2) PM to help the witness in being
robust about any changes required. That said I fear that we are too late for this round.
Meeting in the juicebar opposite PaM sounds good. I will join you c.9.30 as I have a commitment first thing.
Best
David
David Barker
Partner
for Pinsent Masons LLP
Winner — ‘Law Firm of the Year’ at The Lawyer Awards 2018
From: pete.newsome:
Sent: 02 April 2019 0!
To: BARKER David; Legal.Defencé GRO
Cc: DURKIN Beth
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Thoughts on the trial so far [PM-AC.FID3854255]
David
Happy to discuss further. The main problem was with witness statements they were written by the lawyers and the
witnesses had to be very strong to get them changed. Due to the complex nature of Horizon and the plethora of
contradicting sources of information the ‘facts’ are an easy target as not one person or body ‘owns’ the end to end
process or technical content.
I will be in court tomorrow and will start by having a coffee in the juice bar opposite Pret (more seating available) sat
in the window just after 9.00 if you are free.
Pete
Pete Newsome
Account Manager
DHL_and Post Office Account, Fujitsu UK&l
My normal working week is Monday to Thursday
© £/ViinIel\c-
FUJ00203794
FUJ00203794
CIO: Global Intelligence for the ClO. Fujitsu's online resource for ICT leaders
hv Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
To meet with the new GDPR regulations we are reviewing our opt-in preferences. If you are happy to give opt-in consent to continue receiving relevant
marketing communications please visit this link and simply enter your email
From: BARKER David
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 5:48 PM
To: Defence Legal (Chris Jay,)
Cc: DURKIN Beth
Subject: RE: Thoughts on the trial so far [PM-AC.FID3854255]
Newsome, Pete
Pete
Pending Chris’ reply I have included some comments below.
A couple of general observations:
1. I have been surprised by the number of times I have heard witnesses challenged on their own written
evidence. In my experience a witness is usually challenged in a less direct way, not so much to the effect that
their evidence is wrong, but that there are other matters which the witness has not covered which are relevant
too (and which may be less favourable). One example of this was Tracey Mather’s statement that every
keystroke was recorded in Credence. My understanding from the cross-examination was that this was
inaccurate and that in fact Credence records transactions. I found the “every keystroke” point surprising. If it
were the case that every keystroke were recorded then that would be hugely relevant to this case. It’s hard to
see how that could have been included in the drafting without someone in the legal team picking it up and
saying, “Is that really right?”
2. I infer from you email below that you would be keen that Fujitsu has more involvement/control in giving its
witness evidence. I agree that this would be preferable. The only note of caution I would express is that
without a very detailed understanding of the case it can be quite difficult to second guess the approach of the
PO's lawyers.
Perhaps we can discuss on Wednesday?
Best
David
David Barker
Partner
for Pinsent Masons LLP
mM
Winner — ‘Law Firm of the Year’ at The Lawyer Awards 2018
From: Defence Legal (Chris Jay)
Sent: 26 March 2019 12:25
To: Newsome Pete; BARKER David
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Thoughts on the trial so far
IMPORTANT - This email or attached documents contains legal advice (or relates to litigation or anticipated litigation) and is being provided in
circumstances for which Legal Privilege may be claimed. Do not copy or forward this document without permission.
Pete,
FUJ00203794
FUJ00203794
Many thanks for this.
lam a little tied up supporting new business over the next day or two but will review and get back to you as soon as I
can.
Best Regards
Christopher Jay, Senior Counsel
FUJITSU
Jays Close, Viables Business Park, Basi
stoke, Hampshire, RG22 4BY
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com
Goes
Fujitsu is proud to partner with Autistica
Reshaping ICT, Reshaping Business in partnership with FT.com
vA Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
From: Newsome, Pete [I
Sent: 26 March 2019 11:43
To: BARKER David ¢__
Subject: Thoughts on the trial so far
>; Defence Legal (Chris Jay)
IMPORTANT - This email or attached documents contains legal advice (or relates to litigation or anticipated litigation) and is being provided in
circumstances for which Legal Privilege may be claimed. Do not copy or forward this document without permission.
David and Chris
Having reflected on the trail over the weekend I have the following comments and observations I would like to discuss
regarding progress and Fujitsu’s involvement in the current Post Office litigation
e@ ~The Claimants Councils approach appears to be is to introduce questions based on items not directly related
to witness statements and not viewed in advance by the witness to find inconsistencies in statements based
on cross referencing to other documents not necessarily seen by the provider of the statement (or Fujitsu as
they were Post Office documents). This is putting the witnesses on the spot without the full information in
front of them and being pushed into passing an opinion. This approach appeared to work in the first trial with
this judge where the Post Offices witnesses were heavily criticised. DCB: This is frustrating. The PO’s lawyers
obviously can’t tell Fujitsu’s witnesses what their evidence should be. However, there is nothing to prevent
them from showing Fujitsu’s witnesses in advance documents which they expect the Claimants’ counsel to
put to Fujitsu’s witnesses. The PO should have these documents from disclosure.
e — If the trial is started again do we take more control of the statements. WBD drafted the ones signed by our
witnesses and much of the evidence was ‘second hand’ e.g. Torstein’s statement the sections on Legacy
Horizon were from discussions with Gareth Jenkins. There were many errors in the statements that were hard
for us to check in the time available. DCB: if the current trial were to be vacated and a completely new trial
convened with new issues then it may be possible to serve new witness statements, but even then the
existing statements would still be documents which could be put to Fujitsu witnesses. If there are matters
which need to be corrected then obviously the witnesses should flag that asap.
e The premise of the trial is to rule on the robustness of Horizon (both Legacy and HNGX). I am worried that the
WBD/Council approach does not give enough emphasis on proving the Core Audit process is robust as this is
the data we provide in prosecutions. They also seemed to hide by not putting Gareth on the stand re-the
FUJ00203794
FUJ00203794
Misra trial and the explanation of the saving of a transaction twice in the audit store in legacy Horizon which
was presented as a duplicate transaction which it was not and would not affect the branch accounts.
e¢ The whole premise of this trials feels fatally flawed by the fact that a series of court officials who are not
deeply IT literate are making decisions based on the cross examinations of a small number of
unrepresentative witnesses. When you compare this with the time taken and the number of interviews and
document checks undertaken by EY and others when we have a PCI or other audit over a number of weeks
(often 2-3 months) by IT and Accounting professionals the chance of a true reflection verdict seems thin, more
a feeling on the balance of evidence not an accurate representation of the processes and systems in place to
develop and support the Horizon systems. DCB: I understand the frustration and concerns. To an extent the
court relies on the experts in particular for a very detailed level of understanding. The idea is that they
have explored all the detail and only outstanding areas of disagreement should be left.
*® On balance of the evidence I have heard in this trial so far I do not see any increased risk that Fujitsu are likely
to be dragged further into the trial process. Most of the unanswerable criticism seems to revolve around the
bugs not being communicated to SPMs which is Post Offices responsibility not Fujitsu’s.
e Key to this trial has always been the expert witness testimony so we need to review Jason Coyne’s report in
light of anything we would be worried about in light of the trial so far (I don’t think there is) and anything we
want to make sure WBD are aware of to express in Robert Worden’s evidence. DCB: I assume that PO’s
lawyers are very much engaged on this.
In summary I don’t think Fujitsu is any more exposed by the trail so far as we have never said that issues/bugs
happened and that we have been able to show what happened. The main trials will be the individual ones and that
will be based on the ARQ evidence so as long as WBD are making sure the audit process is seen as cast iron (which it
is) and not side tracked by ‘ambush’ cross questioning.
Would be happy to discuss at some point and get your view on passing some of this to Wendy and Rachel within
Fujitsu if we think it would inform senior management.
Thanks
Pete
Pete Newsome
Account Manager
DHL. and.Post Office Account, Fujitsu UK&l
Web: uk.fujitsu.com
My normal working week is Monday to Thursday
I-CIO: Global Intelligence for the ClO. Fujitsu's online resource for ICT leaders
Bh Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
To meet with the new GDPR regulations we are reviewing our opt-in preferences. If you are happy to give opt-in consent to continue receiving relevant
marketing communications please visit this link and simply enter your email
Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No
96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: 22 Baker
Street, London W1U 3BW; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) and Fujitsu
FUJ00203794
FUJ00203794
Laboratories of Europe Limited (registered in England No. 4153469) both with registered offices at: Hayes
Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may
be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is
virus-free.
If you consider this email spam, please block using the Mimecast option on your Outlook toolbar. See the Information
Security Intranet pages for details. If you have clicked on a suspect link or provided details please report to the IT
Service Desk immediately.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email is sent on behalf of Pinsent Masons LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in
England & Wales (registered number: OC333653) authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and
the appropriate regulatory body in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Its registered office is at 30 Crown Place,
London EC2A 4ES.
Reference to ‘Pinsent Masons’ is to the international legal practice of Pinsent Masons LLP and/or one or more of the
affiliated entities that practise under the name ‘Pinsent Masons’ as the context requires. The word ‘partner’, used in
relation to Pinsent Masons, refers to a member of Pinsent Masons or an employee or consultant with equivalent
standing. A list of members of Pinsent Masons LLP, those non-members who are designated as partners, and non-
member partners in affiliated entities, is available for inspection at our offices or at www.pinsentmasons.com
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. It may also be legally
privileged. If you. it recipient please do not use or publish its contents, contact Pinsent Masons
immediately on} ‘then delete. Contracts cannot be concluded with Pinsent Masons nor service
effected on Pinser I. Emails are not secure and may contain viruses. Pinsent Masons may monitor
traffic data.
For information about how we use your personal data at Pinsent Masons, including your rights, please see our privacy
policy.
We have amended our Standard Terms of Business to cover the UK leaving the EU. They are limited changes to the
data protection provisions. There are equivalent changes proposed for clients with non-standard terms. Please click
here for full details of the changes.
Further information about us is available at www.pinsentmasons.com
Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited (registered in England No
96056); Fujitsu EMEA PLC (registered in England No 2216100) both with registered offices at: 22 Baker
Street, London W1U 3BW; PFU (EMEA) Limited, (registered in England No 1578652) and Fujitsu
Laboratories of Europe Limited (registered in England No. 4153469) both with registered offices at: Hayes
Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may
be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is
virus-free.
If you consider this email spam, please block using the Mimecast option on your Outlook toolbar. See the Information
Security Intranet pages for details. If you have clicked on a suspect link or provided details please report to the IT
Service Desk immediately.
FUJ00203794
FUJ00203794
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email is sent on behalf of Pinsent Masons LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England &
Wales (registered number: OC333653) authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the appropriate
regulatory body in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Its registered office is at 30 Crown Place, London EC2A 4ES.
Reference to ‘Pinsent Masons’ is to the international legal practice of Pinsent Masons LLP and/or one or more of the affiliated
entities that practise under the name ‘Pinsent Masons’ as the context requires. The word ‘partner’, used in relation to Pinsent
Masons, refers to a member of Pinsent Masons or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing. A list of members of
Pinsent Masons LLP, those non-members who are designated as partners, and non-member partners in affiliated entities, is
available for inspection at our offices or at www.pinsentmasons.com
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. It may also be legally privileged. If
not the intended recipient please do not use or publish its contents, contact Pinsent Masons immediately o H
then delete. Contracts cannot be concluded with Pinsent Masons nor service effected on Pinsent Masons by email. Emails
not secure and may contain viruses. Pinsent Masons may monitor traffic data.
For information about how we use your personal data at Pinsent Masons, including your rights, please see our privacy policy.
We have amended our Standard Terms of Business to cover the UK leaving the EU. They are limited changes to the data
protection provisions. There are equivalent changes proposed for clients with non-standard terms. Please click here for full
details of the changes.
Further information about us is available at www.pinsentmasons.com