POL00021750
POL00021750
Message
From: Parsons, Andrew [Andrew. Parsons:
Sent: 26/03/2015 16:00:46
To: Rodric Williams (rodric.williams
Subject: FW: Disclosure query [BD-4A.Fil
"That seems to me to be a non-technical, inexpert opinion and one based on speculative theory rather than on proven
fact".
Also highlighted in yellow below.
A
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin
www.bonddickinson.com
Sent: 02 March 2014 18:54
To: Chris Aujard (christopher
(david.olive
Cc: Matthews,
Subject: FW: Disclosure query [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Belinda Crowe (belinda.crowe
Rodric Williams (rodric.williams: "GRO
All
Please see below from Brian Altman re the comms issue in SS' report. Brian's view is that the SS' statement is probably
disclosable to other prosecuted / convicted SPMRs in a similar situation.
My view is that we are unlikely to be able to make SS change their opinion. Pressing them to add more detail or justify
their view is I think likely to cement the current conclusion. However, as a point of principle, it may be questioned whether
SS should even be offering their view given the lack of supporting evidence. It may be that we can persuade the WG that
SS should not be making speculative statements as this is unlikely to assist at mediation — if anything, SS' conclusion is
likely to drive a wedge between the parties.
This is not to say that POL should not challenge SS' conclusion — we should be getting FJ's view and (assuming its
strongly supportive) giving it to SS asap. Fu's analysis can be deployed at mediation and may (subject to Brian's further
thoughts) prevent the need for disclosure / mitigate the impact of the SS report in criminal proceedings.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
POL-0018229
POL00021750
POL00021750
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Brian Altman [mailto:BAltman
Sent: 02 March 2014 10:01
To: Parsons, Andrew
Cc: Matthews, Gavin
Subject: RE: Disclosure query [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Dear Andy
In principle the comment found in para 5.1 would I'm afraid prima facie be disclosable in any case involving assertions by
a defendant that there was some casual link between communication line difficulties and reported losses. The fact SS's
view is "unevidenced" would not alter its potential disclosability as such.
However, before any consideration is given to the cases in which such disclosure may arise, there seems to me first a
requirement to understand what it is SS is saying.
The first important reference to the issue may be found at para 3.2 of the Brewster report, namely, "... Post Office
disagree with the alleged opinion of the Fujitsu engineer that communication line problems could give rise to losses."
Para 3.3 notes that following the removal of the back office phone in this case in October 2012 no further line faults or
problems were reported.
It appears it is these findings that lead SS to conclude at para 4.2, "Whilst we have seen no technical evidence that links
communications line problems to transactional discrepancies, we find the proximity of this solution to the resolution of
the alleged problems to be quite compelling." Thus they conclude at para 5.1 as set out in your email below.
lam troubled by the assertion that SS has seen no technical evidence to establish any causal link and admits they've
established no causal link between communications line problems and losses, yet "... believe that the communication
line problems did play some part in these losses." Does that mean the Fujitsu engineer's opinion was not or did not rely
on technical evidence?
It seems to me the sole basis upon which SS have arrived at that conclusion is because following resolution of the issue
there were no further reported problem:
Moreover, the report does not quantify the losses sai
the communication issue. All they say is it played "some part in these losses"
to be caused by
On those grounds I feel POL would be justified in seeking to understand (and contest in the context of the mediation)
the statement given its potential consequences. I think at all events you should request sight of the Fujitsu engineer's
opinion/report to begin with, assuming you haven't seen it. But I think you need to tread cautiously. You don't want SS
firming up their position.
The best result for now would be a concession from SS that this is a conclusion that is specific to this case only, and does
not apply across the board, unlike for example SS's conclusions in their 8 July report. Whether SS might be prepared to
concede that remains to be seen.
POL-0018229
POL00021750
POL00021750
Were they not to soften their stance and stand by their conclusion then we may have a problem. You might then have to
think of whether there is any other expert POL might instruct who could undermine SS's position on this. How realistic
that is in practice and politically only you may know.
I hope this is of some assistance.
Regards,
Brian
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:andrew.parsong
Sent: 27 February 2014 16:37
To: Brian Altman
Cc: Matthews, Gavin
Subject: Disclosure query [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Brian
I hope you are well.
We have received the attached report which has been prepared by Second Sight into the case of Mrs Brewer. Mrs
Brewer is one of the applicants to the Post Office mediation scheme but was not criminally prosecuted.
At the end of the report (para 5.1) SS draw the following conclusion:
"Whilst we have not been able to establish a direct causal link between communication line problems and the losses
reported, we believe that communication line problems did play some part in these losses."
Post Office should be grateful for your thoughts on whether this type of comment is of a type that would be disclosable in
other past or future criminal cases. I appreciate that this is a very broad hypothetical question and that disclosures need
to be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, we are looking for a steer on whether this type of general, un-
evidenced view could be over the disclosure threshold.
I've set out some more background information below on communications issues that may be of use. Post Office's
immediate concern is that this issue could arise in a lot of cases and therefore could set a precedent. It is therefore
considering whether to contest the statement and to what extent. The need to disclose this information in criminal
proceedings would weigh favour of a stronger response by POL.
POL would be looking to discuss this matter with Second Sight early next week so anything you could provide before then
would be much appreciated.
Background to comms issues
The Horizon system uses a standard telephone line to send transaction data from each branch to the central POL data
centre. It is the subpostmaster's responsibility to install and maintain a telephone line in their branch for use by
Horizon. It is clearly stated that the line must not be used for any other purpose (eg. surfing the internet on another
computer).
In Mrs Brewer's case, she suffered a number of communication difficulties between her branch and the data centre. On
investigating this matter, POL identified that Mrs Brewer had plugged a telephone into the Horizon line and advised that
the telephone be unplugged. At around the same time as the telephone was unplugged, the number and size of losses in
the branch decreased. It appears that Second Sight's conclusion above is drawn from the close correlation of these two
events.
POL-0018229
POL00021750
POL00021750
To put this issue in context, a number of branches have complained about communications failures. These range from
claims that Horizon ran slowly to full allegations that the comms failures caused transaction data to be lost. For its part,
POL is confident that the failure of a comms line would not cause any loss of data / transactions (there are several backup
systems including a backup comms system that runs over the mobile telephone network).
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP.
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www.bonddickinson.com
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
‘The information in this e-mail and any attachments is con! ly privileged and protected by law. baltm:
this e-mail and ‘you are not baltmanf please notify andrew.parson
Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this comm
Jonly is authorised to access
Soon as possible and delete any copies.
ation or attachments 1S prolabited aid thay be unlawful
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission. Bond Dickinson LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage
which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is n
+ given nor endorsed by it.
This email is sent for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP wh a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our re;
offic ~~ ‘GRO where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refe
the LLP, ran employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627.
Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
POL-0018229