POL00021856
POL00021856
Thank you for sending through a draft of the Part Two Mediation Briefing Report for comment. You have
asked for factual comments in the first instance but, having undertaken a quick, but thorough review Post
Office considers it necessary, and more important at this stage, to set out in writing a number of substantive
issues. Many of the comments that follow are similar to ones we have made previously on a number of
occasions in various discussions and exchanges about documents Second Sight has produced during the
period of during the period of your engagement. However, as this report raises, yet again, similar issues
Post Office now considers it necessary to make these points formally in writing
For the avoidance of doubt, the comments that follow are in no way aimed at fettering Second Sight’ s
independence. The aim of these comments is to support the production of a high quality report which assists
the applicants and the success of the Scheme — an aim which I am sure we all share.
In summary Post Office considers that the report as drafted falls well below the standard Post Office would
expect from a firm of forensic accountants engaged to prepare independent evidence based reports. The
provisions set out in the letter of engagement between Post office and second sight require, among other
things, that:
+ Although Post Office is engaging Second Sight, Second Sight is to act independently in providing the
Services and any assessments or opinion given by Second Sight shall be without bias and based on the
facts and evidence available. (Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1)
+ — In providing the Services, Second Sight shall act with the skill and care of qualified experienced
accountants... Paragraph 5.1 of Schedule 1
For the reasons set out under the various headings set out below, Post Office does not consider the report
as drafted, or the approach taken by Second Sight in the report meets those requirements. This is
particularly concerning because Second Sight has been engaged continuously by Post Office since 2012,
during which time Post Office has invested a considerable amount of valuable time and resource to provide
Second Sight with a significant amount of information, in some instances on more than one occasion, to
assist their investigation into Horizon. Post office does not consider it unreasonable therefore to take the
view that Second Sight has had more than sufficient time, opportunity, information and evidence available to
them to produce a comprehensive, balanced, evidence based analysis of the issues they seek to address in
the report.
Evidence, analysis and context
The report fails to set out facts and evidence but draws conclusions in many places, thus leaving unhelpful
ambiguous and speculative assertions on which readers are then left to draw their own conclusions. It lacks
examples or statistics to substantiate speculative conclusions it does draw.
The report in several instances refers to “Subpostmasters" generally rather than “Applicants” and
contains no statistical data to explain the conetex — for example the number of applicants compared to the
number of subpostmasters generally who have not complained to the Scheme, the number of detailed cases
Second Sight have reviewed and, importantly, when referring to ‘anumber or ‘many subpostmasters
having raised concerns, what that number is and whether or not the concerns have been investigated or
whether they remain untested .
For the avoidance of doubt, Post office accepts that Second Sight may challenge facts, information and
evidence which post office has advanced. However post office considers that for the report to be
independent and unbiased it must analyse and set out the evidence, facts and information it has identified
which supports that challenge.
Methodology
The Report does not explain the overarching methodology used by second sight to examine the issues
presented, clearly cite the evidence upon which the report is based or reference the specific sources of the
individual assertions made. These are fundamental requirements for a report purporting to provide an
investigative analysis.
Scope
POL00021856
POL00021856
The Scope of Second Sight's original investigation, and the matters which are in scope of the
Scheme are matters related to Horizon and associated issues. That is made clear on the Application
form. Matters such as subpostmaster contracts and criminal, or indeed any other legal matters are
not reasonably related (or related at all) to issues "concerning Horizon and any associated
issues. For the purpose of Second Sight’s investigations, the matter of the contract is relevant only
to the extent to that it provides the benchmark against which the actions of Post Office and
Applicants should be assessed. Failure by Second Sight to draw conclusions or make assessments
against this benchmark, or, to put it another way, for Second Sight to retrospectively impose
obligations on Post Office (or indeed Applicants) which it did not and do not have, will inevitably
result in conclusions which have no foundation and, importantly, may impede a successful
resolution of the complaint.
Second Sight qualifications and competence
Second Sight, as a firm of accountants, are not qualified to opine on legal matters, including matters relating
to contracts or criminal investigations, nor has Second Sight been engaged under the Engagement Terms to
do so. Any comments Second Sight makes on such matters would carry little or no weight. If it is necessary
to reference such matters, and Post Office for the reasons stated do not consider that it should be, Second
Sight should make that clear for the benefit of the applicants and the mediator.
Accurate information and analysis to support the Applicant and the mediator
Post Office originally agreed to Second Sight's suggestion that a comprehensive generic report to be
provided with individual case reports would assist Second Sight by avoiding the need to provide detailed
assessment and analysis of issues raised in applications in every case. In agreeing to this approach Post
Office had always expected that the generic report would provide that more detailed analysis to assist the
Applicants understanding the issues they have raised and that may be discussed should their case proceed
to mediation. As drafted the report appears to do nothing to advance the applicants position or assist with
the satisfactory operation of the Scheme. Its bias, inaccuracies and lack of useful information and analysis is
likely to create unrealistic expectations which could confuse matters at mediation or make resolution difficult.
Post Office considers it imperative that the Report is significantly improved and brought up to the required
standard. Further Post Office cannot allow many of the unevidenced assertions set out in the Report go
unchallenged. If not substantively amended Post Office will be forced to set out the correct facts and provide
its own analysis of the issues and present them when commenting on Second Sight's draft CRR so that they
will be made available to the applicant. Post Office would prefer to avoid this outcome,which would dolittle
for the credibility of the Scheme and would favour greater engagement by Second Sight on the issues so
that they might be presented accurately and factually in away that would truly benefit Applicants and the
Scheme.
In conclusion Post Office would stress Second Sight's status as a credible independent investigator is key to
the success of the Scheme. Post Office is not looking to fetter that independence. Nor is Post Office
seeking to impede the success of the Scheme in any way (as is clear from the fact that Post Office
continuing to investigate the Horizon and associated issues despite the fact that no systemic issues have still
not been found after two years of Second Sight investigations). However that position does not extend to
allowing the Report to contain material that is incorrect or unsupported by evidence or that lends greater
weight to the anecdotal (and largely untested) evidence of applicants whilst ignoring the factual information
provided by Post Office. This risks Second Sight losing their impartiality if they are not prepared to consider
all sides' view equally.
Annexed to this letter are some initial comments relating specifically to the detail of the report and, yet again,
Post Office would urge Second Sight to meet with Post Office to go through the report to ensure that it
properly reflects the facts..