NFSP00001321
NFSP00001321
From: Amanda Cox ¢_
Sent: Fri 20/12/2019 11:4
To: Mr Andrew B Summer
Ce: Calum Greenhow :
Subject: RE: Horizon trial judgement FAD: 200647 Post Office: Orleton PO
Dear Mr Summers
Thank you for your response to the court case outcome in respect of the Horizon trial.
Much is being said across media, which naturally focuses on certain aspects of the trial. The
judgement handed down by Mr Justice Fraser is nearly 600 pages long with over a 1000 individual
paragraphs and he himself states the complexity of the trial and also the 3 versions of Horizon.
The reason why we are directing individuals, of which there are many, to the Complex Case Team
in Chesterfield is because that is the central place within Post Office where all those who believe
they have suffered a financial loss can go to have their case considered. The NFSP are not
absolving ourselves of our role but ensuring that current and former colleagues are being treated
properly and fairly.
Our role now, will be to sit down with Post Office regularly to go through the individual cases to
ensure that each case has been looked at and considered carefully in light of the judgement.
Given their number and complexity, will take time so patience will be required.
This brings me on to the second of your points. Mr Justice Fraser in paragraph 34 says the
following
“In my judgment, the correct construction of Horizon Issue 1 is that contended for by the claimants. In
other words, it involves a two-stage process. Firstly, consideration of whether there were, or are, bugs,
errors or defects in the Horizon system as alleged by the claimants. Secondly, if the answer is that there
were, or are, such bugs, errors or defects, the second stage is to consider whether these have (or did
have previously) the potential to cause apparent or alleged discrepancies in SPMs’ branch accounts
generally. The issue is not whether such bugs, errors or defects did in fact cause such
discrepancies or shortfalls in the claimants’ accounts specifically. That separate or different
issue — the effect upon claimants’ branch accounts - is a more claimant specific one. It will have
to be determined at some stage, for any of the claimants whose individual claims come to trial in
the future. It may require expert forensic accountancy evidence. It was not ordered to be dealt with in
the Horizon Issues trial. The Horizon Issues were intended to be, and in my judgment on their wording
are, generic issues relating to Horizon and its operation. However, if a bug, error or defect is shown
to have had an actual impact on any SPM’s accounts, then by definition it has had the potential
to have such an impact. Actual impact on branch accounts can therefore be of assistance in
considering Issue 1 as ordered, namely including potential.”
The above shows the complexity of the overall case and partly why we are suggesting colleagues
go to the Complex Case Team because each claim will have to be viewed in light of if it was a bug,
error or defect that caused the loss or was a mistake on behalf of the Horizon user.
As someone who has used Horizon since its inception in 1999 and still do, I was and still am at risk
of the above, just as my colleagues so I can assure you that I am well aware the need to challenge
Post Office to deal with past, present and future cases properly in a manner that seeks resolution
NFSP00001321
NFSP00001321
rather than prosecution.
Yours,
Calum Greenhow
Chief Executive Officer
Amanda Cox
General Office Supervisor and Receptionist
The National Federation of SubPostmasters
Evelyn House, 22 Windlesham Gardens
Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex BN43 5AZ
W: www.nfsp.org.uk
This email (and any attachment) is confidential, may be legally privileged and is intended for the addressee
only. If you have received it in error please inform us immediately by email responding to the sender and
then delete this message. Please do not copy it, disclose its contents to any other person or use it for any
purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
We have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this email and any attachments have been scanned
for software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses
and would advise you to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
You can view our privacy policy online at www.nfsp.org.uk/privacy
National Federation of SubPostmasters is a company limited by guarantee (incorporated in England,
company number 09771284)
a Original Message----- one
From: andrew=orleton.eclipse.co.uk@
[mailto:andrew=orleton.eclipse.co.u
Sent: 20 December 2019 10:59
To: Amanda Cox
Cc: georgetdev-nfsp-admin:
Subject: Horizon trial judgement FAD: 200647 Post Office: Orleton PO
in Behalf Of Mr Andrew B Summers
NFSP00001321
NFSP00001321
I have read with great interest the satatement on the Horizon trial.
Two matters come to mind:
Firstly, why is the Fed telling members with these problems to go to NBSC or the other e-mail
address? Surely your policy is to support postmasters with these problems to come to NFSP for
support and advice in the event of NBSC being unable to help - presumably this last will apply to
most cases
Secondly, although the judgement stated that Horizon is more robust and even 'far more robust’
than Legacy Horizon, it does not state or infer that the system is actually robust. I know this may
seem like semantics, but this situation is extremely important to those with problems who need to
know exactly what the judgement stated.
Please confirm the NFSP understands these statements this way as soon as possible.
Thank you